2006-05-12

Government Orders
Hon. Gordon O'Connor:  moved that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to stand and introduce Bill C-13, the budget implementation act. The purpose of Bill C-13, of course, is to implement the measures announced in budget 2006.
 The measures contained in this bill were outlined by the finance minister in his speech in this House on May 2. These measures will make a real difference to Canadians, because in implementing this year's budget, Bill C-13 focuses on our new government's promises and priorities, delivers real results to people and lays a solid foundation for Canada's future.
Before I talk more about how budget 2006 and the measures in this bill fulfill our promises to Canadians, it is important to note first that this government is aware of the variables involved in budget planning. I am talking about variables such as changes in commodity prices, especially in the energy sector, or the variable of an appreciating dollar under pressure from global current account imbalances, reflecting, for example, developments in the U.S.
That is why our new government's budget plan is based on and delivers fiscal discipline. It does this by providing a clear, responsible agenda to build a better Canada, starting by addressing the five priorities set out in the Speech from the Throne. These priorities are: cleaning up government by improving accountability; lowering taxes for working Canadians; protecting Canadian families and communities; supporting parents' choice in child care; and delivering the health care Canadians need by developing a patient wait times guarantee with the provinces.
I would now like to illustrate just how budget 2006 has supported each of these priorities and the promises we made to Canadians with respect to the priorities. At the same time, I will also show how the proposals contained in this bill fit into the big picture of helping to build a solid foundation for Canada's future.
First, budget 2006 responds to this government's priority of improving accountability. This budget builds on the reforms of the federal accountability action plan, the very first piece of legislation introduced by our new government.
 Improving accountability means, for example, that our budget decisions will be implemented over the next two years. In contrast, Liberal plans were spread out over five years and most of the measures barely took effect until the back end of those five years. Of course, anything or nothing might happen if promises are made that will not be kept for five long years. By contrast, measures in the bill before the House today have been introduced by our government because they are affordable now, ready to be implemented now and will take effect by next year, not half a decade from now.
Also, budget 2006 proposes to restrain the growth of spending, which exploded upward to increase nearly 15% a year under the Liberals. It commits to a new approach to overall expenditure management. We are determined to ensure that programs are not just feel-good programs thrown out there for show in some kind of smoke and mirrors exercise, but that they really focus on results and deliver value for Canadians' hard-earned money.
To achieve better expenditure management, the President of the Treasury Board will identify $1 billion of savings in 2006-07 and in the next year, 2007-08. That is only one-half of 1% of total government spending in savings per year, but we think it is important that we continue to look for ways to save Canadians money. In the fall, in just a few weeks' time, the President of the Treasury Board will report his findings of where these savings can be achieved.
Also, our budget plans to reduce the public debt by $3 billion each year. As a result of this plan, the goal of lowering the debt to GDP ratio to 25% will be achieved one year earlier.
Budget 2006 also announces that the government will consider allocating a portion of any year-end surplus over $3 billion to the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. Of course, one of the main benefits of this action would be to improve fairness for younger Canadians by lowering contributions in the future for future generations of workers, and it would also help to fund the huge unfunded liability in those plans.
Financial reporting will be improved, with one example being federally funded foundations, which are now hidden from the taxpayers who fund them. This will be consistent with recommendations from the Auditor General.
This government recognizes that Canadians pay too much tax. According to the Fraser Institute, while the average family's income has gone up 1,100% since 1961, its taxes have shot up a whopping 1,600%, outstripping the growth in income. Budget 2006 delivers more tax relief for people than the last four federal budgets combined. It puts twice as much resources into tax relief as it does into new spending.
We feel this is only fair to Canadians who work hard to fund the programs of governments. In fact, 90% of the tax savings that we offer in this budget will go to individual Canadians and their families. 
We just have to look at the budget measures proposed in Bill C-13 that will put more money in the pockets of Canadians. To begin with, this bill delivers on the government's commitment to cut the GST by one percentage point, down to 6%, effective this July 1. This GST cut will benefit all Canadians by close to $9 billion over two years from that one reduction, even those who do not earn enough money to pay personal income tax. Very importantly, to provide relief to low and modest income Canadians, the budget keeps the GST credit at current levels even though the GST is being cut.
That is not all. Bill C-13 also proposes a comprehensive plan to reduce personal income taxes for all taxpayers, starting with an increase in the basic personal amount. That is the amount that an individual can earn without paying any tax. We want to make sure that this amount grows each year and remains above the currently legislated levels into 2006, 2007 and beyond.
In concert with this plan, Bill C-13 also proposes to permanently reduce the lowest personal income tax rate from 16% to 15.5% effective January 1, 2006. It also confirms that the rate will be 15% from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. Together, these measures will provide personal income tax relief of almost $2.8 billion in this coming fiscal year, 2006-07, and a further $1.9 billion in 2007-08.
We need to affirm and remind ourselves that working Canadians are the foundation of Canada's economic growth. However, choosing to work also means additional costs, costs for everything from uniforms to safety gear to home computers and various supplies. In recognition of these costs, budget 2006 will introduce the Canada employment credit. This is a new employment expense tax credit for employees' work expenses. The credit will significantly increase the amount of income that working Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax, to almost $10,000 by 2007.
Taken together, these measures will deliver almost $20 billion in tax relief for people over the next two years. As a result, about 655,000 low income Canadians, or two-thirds of a million Canadians, will be removed from the tax rolls.
Budget 2006 also recognizes that creating an environment for more and better jobs and for strong economic growth depends on having a competitive tax system. The engines of our economy, our wealth creators, both large and small, should not have to go into the market square with the ball and chain of heavy taxes tied around their ankles.
Budget 2006 proposes the tax relief that we promised to Canadians. In fact, the same promises were made by the former government, but they were never delivered. We will deliver tax relief that will enable Canada's businesses to go into a fair fight with their competitors. Bill C-13 proposes a significant business tax relief plan that will reduce the general corporate income tax rate from 21% down to 19% by January 1, 2010. The bill also proposes to eliminate the corporate surtax for all corporations in 2008 and eliminate the federal capital tax as of January 1, 2006. That is two years ahead of schedule.
These proposed cuts will allow Canada to regain the solid statutory tax advantage that we had prior to the 2004 tax changes with our biggest competitor, the United States. We are lowering taxes for working Canadians and also for Canadian job creators. 
Another of our government's five priorities is to protect Canadian families and communities. Canadians are proud of our country and our country's tradition of safe and security communities. We will take vigorous measures to keep our streets safe and our borders secure. To ensure that Canada remains safe and secure, budget 2006 allocates funding to hire 1,000 more RCMP officers and additional federal prosecutors to more effectively deal with drugs and gun smuggling. The budget also proposes to arm border officers and eliminate work alone posts. We want to stop the bad guys, not provide them free passage into our good country.
The budget provides needed funds to further improve Canada's pandemic preparedness. On top of that, budget 2006 commits to a total investment of over $5 billion to strengthen Canada's security forces, starting with more than $1 billion coming over the next two years.
Perhaps the priority that is most widely talked about in the 2006 budget is the universal child care plan. Hon. members will no doubt all agree that one of the most important investments government can make is to support families as they raise their children. That is why budget 2006 announced the kind of investments that will make a real difference to parents by providing more choice in child care for families with young children.
As a result of these budget measures, total direct federal support to families will be approximately $11.7 billion for this fiscal year, with the vast majority of benefits directed to low and middle income families. An integral part of that support for families is contained in Bill C-13. Specifically, it proposes $3.7 billion in funding over two years for the universal child care benefit, which will give all families $100 per month for each child under six. This benefit will help some 1.5 million families with over two million children. As well, budget 2006 proposes to invest $250 million each year, starting in 2007, in a new planned and practical initiative to actually increase the number of child care spaces for those who need them, by 25,000 each year.
The fifth priority of the new government is to ensure that all Canadians receive necessary medical treatment within medically acceptable waiting times. Budget 2006 includes a commitment to work with the provinces and territories to develop a wait times guarantee for medically necessary services.
Budget 2006 also announces new allocations of the $11.3 billion in equalization and $2.1 billion territorial formula financing for this year. These new allocations are based on the latest available fiscal and economic data. They give certainty to the provinces and territories and ensures that they will all benefit.
Six provinces and one territory will benefit directly from this decision compared to what they were advised, back in November 2005, they would receive. The government is also providing one time adjustments to fully offset the equalization and territorial formula financing declines that would have been experienced by two provinces and two territories under this decision. Bill C-13 sets out payment levels based on this new data and provides the funding for these one time adjustments.
Budget 2006 goes above and beyond our five priorities. For example, the government recognizes the difficulty some Canadians face when they must deal with a disability. In 2003 the technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities was established to provide tax advice for persons with disabilities. The committee released its final report entitled “Disability Tax Fairness” in December 2004. It made 25 policy and administrative recommendations.
The government endorses the work of the committee. Budget 2006 proposes to fully implement these policy recommendations. Indeed, the bill goes beyond the committee's recommendations. Here are the measures proposed in Budget 2006 to assist Canadians with disabilities.
Bill C-13 proposes to increase the maximum annual child disability benefit, effective January 2006. This benefit is a supplement to the Canada child tax benefit for children in low and modest income families who meet the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit.
Effective July 2006, the bill also proposes to extend eligibility for the child disability benefit to middle and higher income families caring for a child who is eligible for the disability tax credit, including now all families that are currently eligible for the Canada child tax benefit base benefit.
We will also increase the maximum amount of the refundable medical expense supplement for the 2006 taxation year. The supplement improves work incentives for Canadians with disabilities by helping to offset the loss of coverage for medical and disability related expenses under social assistance when recipients move into the labour force.
The government understands the challenges that families can face when dealing with a disability. The Minister of Finance will appoint a small group of experts to examine additional ways to help parents save for the long term financial security of a child with severe disabilities. We have asked these experts to provide their recommendations very quickly, within six months, because we intend to move ahead to support Canadians with disabilities.
On still another front, this year's budget works to improve the environment in which we live. This includes funding to assist and build support systems. For example, Bill C-13 encourages charitable donations by eliminating the capital gains tax on donations of listed securities to public charities.
Unlike the previous Liberal government, which talked a lot about the environment while greenhouse gas emissions rose under its watch to 30% above the target, our government is committed to concrete actions that will deliver real results in Canada. We do not believe in spending billions of dollars offshore to keep on polluting here at home.
We will preserve natural areas by proposing to exempt donations of ecologically sensitive land from the capital gains tax.
These are only a few examples of the ways in which this new Conservative government is keeping its promises to stand up for Canada and for working class Canadians.
As members can see, the government's first budget takes real action to keep promises and address core priorities. The measures contained in the bill would make a real difference to Canadians.
In summary, budget 2006 focuses on the priorities of Canadians, the measures they elected this government to deliver. The budget does deliver real results for Canadians and does so in a financially and fiscally responsible way. I therefore encourage all hon. members to accord the bill swift passage in the House of Commons.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the day after the budget, my office received a call from a constituent from the riding of Brandon—Souris. He was very puzzled why the budget said his income tax rate would go down when in fact it would go up. He had called his constituency and was told that he had been duped by the media, and in fact the tax rate would go down. He said to my office that he had been duped into voting Conservative in the last election, but as a consequence of this lie, he had been un-duped and would subsequently no longer be voting Conservative.
 Real Canadians do not care whether tax rates are legislated or done by ways and means or orders in council. This is Ottawa talk. What people care about is the taxes they actually pay. As sure as day is day and night is night, if we look at our tax form, if we read the budget, it is abundantly a fact that Canadians will pay a 15% tax rate at the lowest rate in 2005 and 15.5% next year. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
Will the parliamentary secretary, at least in the interest of transparency, honesty and accountability, acknowledge this basic fact?
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that under this budget every single Canadian will have lower taxes. In fact, the budget delivers twice the tax relief even if the Liberals had kept their promise, which they rarely were able to do.
What the member likes to do is torque one little piece of our package and make some assumptions on that instead of doing the honest thing, the true thing, and looking at all the measures taken together. All these measures taken together leave working class Canadians far better off, and they know it. In fact, the budget delivers $20 million in tax relief over just two years back into the hands of Canadians.
The member likes to twist numbers and talk about them in isolation. He knows, and Canadians know, which is even more important, that middle and lower class income Canadians are better off under this plan because it contains real tax relief and a number of other measures instead of being robbed for wasted projects by the Liberals. We are going to be fiscally responsible in a way that provides real tax relief to all Canadians.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Tory budget seems long on corporate tax cuts, and I count three or four specific items, but short on corporate tax fairness.
In the first Tory budget, why did the Conservatives not do something about what is called, in the language of accountants, tax-motivated expatriation? This is a nice way of putting what are considered to be sleazy, tax-cheating loopholes where corporate tax fugitives create dummy companies in corporate tax havens so they do not have to pay their corporate taxes in Canada. The most egregious example about which most Canadians know is our former prime minister. He very conveniently tore up all the tax treaties with all the other tax havens except for the one country where he himself had all the dummy companies of Canada Steamship Lines so he could be a corporate tax fugitive and avoid paying his fair share of corporate taxes.
Why did the Conservatives choose not to plug this last corporate tax haven, which is being exploited? My figures are that it is costing Canadians $15 billion worth of lost revenue?
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I will set aside the temptation to talk about the former prime minister, but I will say it is important for us to remember that both small and large corporations in this country are the engines of wealth creation and they are job creators. It is important that they have a fair tax regime in order that they continue their work to build the Canadian economy and provide a higher standard of living and prosperity for our country. We want to make sure that is done.
 We want to make sure that our tax regime is fair for the companies doing business in Canada because there is a huge incentive for them to move elsewhere. Capital is now international and we have to balance the need for fair taxation in our country with the need to attract investment and attract job-creating activity, wealth-creating activity. We try to strike the right balance.
My friend and I might have some debate about the right balance and whether we have struck it. I think that is a very important and fruitful discussion, but balance is important. That is what we strive to deliver and I believe this budget goes a long way toward doing that.
Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned the tax reductions in the budget as being larger tax cuts than what were in the last two budgets of the Liberal government. 
She failed to mention that in 2000 the Liberal government introduced and implemented the largest tax cut in Canadian history of $100 billion. That was focused at income tax reductions which every serious economist in this country has said is the way that we should proceed, that if we are going to reduce taxes, we should reduce income taxes. The Conservative government has decided to reduce the GST because it is politically expedient. 
The member also failed to acknowledge the economic performance under the Liberal government. She was not very gracious in her remarks about that. I wonder if she would reflect upon that and recall that during our Liberal government tenure we had consistent economic growth of 3% per year. We introduced and implemented the largest tax cut in Canadian history. We paid down $55 billion in debt. We eliminated a $42 billion deficit. The economy produced the lowest level of unemployment in Canada's history in the last 40 or 50 years.
I am wondering if the member has forgotten those particular elements because we hear often about the last 12 or 13 years of the Liberal mandate.
Maybe the member could acknowledge those in her remarks when she replies, but if she does not, I wonder if she would comment on the two year horizon that the government is working on in terms of its fiscal plan. Is that because the Conservatives do not really want to outline for Canadians what their plan is beyond that? Certainly the press and very good analysts are speculating that another $20 billion in cuts are coming from the government. I am wondering where those cuts are going to come from and is that the reason the current government is on a two year horizon instead of a five year planning horizon?
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I would advise Canadians to be extremely wary of opposition speculation. It is seldom either accurate or fair. The opposition has an agenda to scare Canadians. We have seen this over and over, especially during the election, and usually not based on a shred of truth.
The two year planning horizon is because Canadians are tired of promises down the road, that five years from now they are going to really get something, but hardly any of it happens now. Canadians want to know that if the government promises something, it will be now and they can count on it, that it is going to be this year, that it is going to be in the next few months. That is reasonable. The Liberal promises are made for half a decade down the road, but anything can happen; there are all kinds of variables. If the promises are made and kept now, quickly, then Canadians know they can take them to the bank. That is important.
The member bragged about the fiscal record of his government. I would be very careful if I were the member. Under the Liberal government spending increased 15% a year. In the last year how many Canadians had a 15% increase in their incomes so they could fund that kind of spending increase by the Liberals? If the spending increase had given them something useful in some respects, that might have been a different thing, but what did the public see? They saw money squandered and wasted for cronyism, pork-barrelling and corrupt practices.
When Canadians see that government is not managed in a fiscally sound way using their money overall, they get concerned. They are not willing to send money to Ottawa to be wasted, squandered and mismanaged in schemes that are not fair to all Canadians. 
The member has a lot to answer for as part of a government that really destroyed Canadians' trust in many ways in the operations of government. That is why the Conservatives are keeping their promises now. We are keeping them in a short timeframe. We are putting into place good fiscal management, sound fiscal practices and more transparency and accountability so that taxpayers can actually see that their money is being properly used. I would ask the member opposite to applaud that because it is right for Canada.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, as the remarks of the parliamentary secretary made abundantly clear, this is a dishonest budget. It is a visionless budget. It is a mean-spirited budget that tries in a blatant way, and it will be unsuccessful, to play to the Conservative political base.
I think few things are more important than basic honesty. As a constituent from Brandon—Souris discovered on budget day, the budget contains a lie. It says that his income tax rate will go down when in fact it will go up. Whatever the dollar amounts involved, that is irrelevant compared to the basic honesty of a budget document and speech which is entirely lacking from the basic point that it said the tax is going down when the tax is going up. Nothing else matters except for the budget which does not tell the truth. There are other ways in which this is a dishonest budget. 
The Indian affairs minister stands in question period in his sanctimonious way and defends his funding to aboriginals when a finance official said only in the last couple of days that the government will have five billion additional dollars, approximately, as a consequence of its reneging on the Kelowna accord. The Conservatives did it. It is confirmed by the officials and they do not admit it. That is dishonest.
They have reneged on the Canada-Ontario agreement. They have reneged on the EnerGuide program, which is a highly efficient program and which really hit one low income individual who had already committed to $3,000 and the government is not following through.
In terms of the point my colleague made, it is disingenuous of this budget to ignore the $100 billion tax cuts delivered in 2000. The Conservatives say that the Liberal government would not deliver over a period of five years. Every penny of that $100 billion has been delivered to Canadians in lower tax cuts. That is a fact. Check the budget documents. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Conservative government has given more tax relief than the Liberals did. 
If the numbers are calculated correctly, one will find that in the years since the government balanced its budget in 1997, the Liberal government tax relief amounted to $16 billion per year as opposed to this budget's $6 billion per year. Those are facts. The $16 billion has been delivered. It is not a fiction and so I think the Conservative government is once again being disingenuous with this dishonest budget. 
The Conservatives are breaking promises. Many Canadians were looking forward to capital gains relief. Nowhere is that to be seen in this budget.
Hon. Larry Bagnell:  A promise is a promise.
John McCallum:  Well, they have broken their promise on this and in many other areas. That is my first point. It is a dishonest--
[Interjection]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House knows how reluctant I am to rise on points of order, but the Standing Orders explicitly state that one cannot cast aspersions or imply the dishonesty of other members. By the words the member is using, he is doing that to our Minister of Finance. I think, Mr. Speaker, you should at minimum ask him to desist, or at least you should ask him to withdraw the previous words and get on with a proper debate on the budget bill.
The Speaker: I will hear the hon. member for York South--Weston on the point of order.
[Interjection]
Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, they characterize the whole Liberal Party as dishonest. At least the member, if it is true, was only alleging that one member was dishonest.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order.
 I was just about to rise to add my voice to that of the hon. member from Edmonton. I have actually been counting and my Liberal colleague started by using the word “lie”. He used the word “dishonest” three times. He used the words “does not tell the truth” twice. He used the term “government is not following the truth” twice. I do not know how much closer one can get to using unparliamentary language. He certainly crossed the line from my standards and from the standards of the NDP caucus.
The Speaker: I have been listening quite closely to the speech the hon. member made. I know the hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park is, as he says, reluctant to get up on points of order. 
In this case the member for Markham--Unionville has been careful to avoid calling the minister dishonest or suggesting that somehow the minister had lied. It appeared that the budget was the thing that to him was offensive. That is the test in my view. Documents can be incorrect. Budgets include more than a speech in the House. Budgets include quite a lot of material that is published with them and tabled with them. The hon. member is helping me out by waving the book in his hand. Yes, those are budget documents and there may be things that are not accurate in them or things which in the hon. member's view are dishonest. That is what he has stated and he was very careful, in my view, to avoid saying that any member of this House was dishonest, which would have got him into real trouble.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre said that the member is very close to the line, and I agree. It would be better if members refrained from using this kind of language, but we do have freedom of speech in this House and members are able to use it and we have had it bandied about in the House for some time now. I caution hon. members, of course, to make sure that they are not making these statements about other hon. members because those comments would be unparliamentary. I do not believe the member for Markham--Unionville has quite crossed the line in his comments.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for confirming my view that the budget is not an hon. member, dishonest though it may be, though it is in fact. 
I will move on now to the second theme, that the budget has no vision. It is a dishonest budget without any vision. When the parliamentary secretary says that the budget creates an environment for growth in a competitive tax system, that is a total joke.
A responsible budget must answer the following question: how can a country of 30 million people compete with the world's giants like China and India? This budget says nothing about that.
In the area of taxes, this budget does the opposite of what should be done. In all other areas the budget does absolutely nothing.
As far as taxes are concerned, the only difference between this budget and our plan is that income tax will go up so that the GST can go down. Every economist in this country, except perhaps the Prime Minister, agrees that increasing income taxes and reducing consumption taxes is the worst policy in the world. If we want to have a productive economy, full growth, savings and investments, if we want to be competitive in the world, this is the worst thing we could do, period.
This issue has another dimension. In reality, Canada will not be able to compete with China's and India's low salaries. That is not our vision. That is not what we want. What we need is our brains, research, innovation and new ideas. The budget provides nothing for this.
This budget is nothing but an insult to students in post-secondary education and to those working in research and innovation. While the Liberals allocated $2.5 billion to research and development over five years, this budget allocates only $250 million. It is an insult. It is nothing.
The insult is worse yet for students pursuing post-secondary studies. This is what we would have done: grant $6,000 to each student taking post-secondary education over the span of their four years at university or college. What is this government doing? It is giving a tax break on text books needed for university studies to the tune of $80 a year. We are talking about $6,000 compared to $80. That is the difference in how much this government and the Liberals value students and their parents who work hard to pay for tuition fees.
There is nothing in this budget to support the Canadian economy, which is facing intense competition with the world's new giants.
The third point is that this is a meanspirited budget. It plays to the political base of the Conservative Party. I believe it will fail. It is a crass attempt to take money from people who are unlikely to vote for the Conservatives and put money into the pockets of those whom they hope will vote Conservative. It is as simple as that.
For example, can members in the House please tell me why it is only the lowest income tax rate that was increased? This is the only way to hit those who earn $35,000 or less and it is the lower incomes that were hit by the tax hike because they are less likely to vote Conservative.
Can members tell me why it is only sports playing families as opposed to music loving families that get the tax break? I suppose the sports playing families are more likely to vote Conservative, but even they will not be very happy when they find out that their $500 tax credit is not worth $500; it is worth more like $80.
The social engineering by the Conservative Party favoured activities like sports, which get money, yet unfavoured activities like music do not, let alone the person who has a difficult time even affording to buy a basketball.
Why do the aboriginals get shafted? Why is their $5 billion taken away? I suppose it is because they are not likely to vote Conservative. Better to put the money into the pockets of the Conservative base.
Why do the Conservatives take away money from the supplement to the child tax credit? The lowest income, mothers of young children, get much less of the $1,200 because the supplement is clawed back. Again, they are not likely to vote Conservative, are they?
Why, apart from the fact that the finance minister wants to put homeless people in jail, does the budget talk about cutting off their funding? I suppose, apart from the government and the minister thinking they should be in jail, the homeless will probably not vote Conservative.
Why does the government skate close to the edge on returning to deficit? It takes away the prudence, that cushion, to protect us from going into deficit. It is less kind to future generations, the ones who benefit from the debt paydown. Any responsible economist knows that in a time of an aging population, it is even more important than normal to pay down the debt. Why do the Conservatives not care about future generations? It is simple. Future generations will not vote in the next election. 
The Conservatives do not care about the environment. Why do they slash and burn expenditures on the environment? Everything except the special measures with direct benefit to the brother of the Minister of Finance. That one gets money, but everything else is slashed. I supposed the environment will not vote in the next election.
This is a dishonest budget. It does not tell the truth, the black and white truth about what is happening to income tax rates. It is a visionless budget. It does nothing for the future of this country. It is a meanspirited budget. It takes money out of the pockets of the least privileged, simply because they are unlikely to vote Conservative, and put the money into the pockets of the Conservative base.
My last point is that it will not work. It will not work because Canadians, like that gentleman from Brandon--Souris, are intelligent. The government underestimates their intelligence. Canadians will know when they get their pay stub in July that their income tax rates have gone up. They will not believe this dishonest budget because they will see it in black and white on their pay slips.
This dishonest budget will not resonate with Canadians. Indeed, polling shows that two-thirds of Canadians question the motives of the budget. Two-thirds of Canadians already believe that the budget is designed to get a majority, and not designed to be good for Canada.
I believe that Canadians will react negatively to this dishonest budget. Canadians will react negatively to a fiscally irresponsible and socially destructive budget that contains no vision for our future and that risks returning into deficit.
Finally, Canadians will react extremely negative to this crass, politically opportunistic budget which takes money from the homeless, the aboriginals, and the lowest income Canadians, to put it into the pockets of the Conservative base.
Canadians have a basic sense of fairness, decency, and a desire for vision for this country. We as Liberals are delighted, come the next election, to fight the Conservatives on a visionless, dishonest, unfair and duplicitous budget. We are convinced that Canadians will be with us.
Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting after hearing a speech like that, when the purpose of the House is to actually have intelligent debate about legislation. All the member opposite for Markham—Unionville did is attack motives with black helicopter conspiracies about why we put forward this budget.
The fact is that this budget will help Canadians. It is good for the economy and it is good for every region of the country. The government is lowering taxes for every Canadian in every income group through lower sales taxes and a lower income tax that is going from 16% to 15.5%. Net taxes for every single Canadian will be lowered.
The member is right in one sense, Conservatives are pushing forward this budget to speak to our base. Our base is the entire country and the Canadian people. The polls show that the country is responding well to this budget.
This is one thing that I found very interesting. Since January 23, when we have been on this side of the House and the Liberals are now on that side of the House, perhaps for hopefully a very long time, the Liberals all of a sudden have all these great ideas. 
We have noticed in question period and in their speeches, such as the one we just heard, that the Liberals say that they promised to do this and the Conservatives are doing that. It does not matter what a Liberal promise is, it matters what gets delivered. The Conservative government is delivering to Canadians.
I see the member for Malpeque promising, while in opposition, with vim and gusto about what a great plan the Liberals now have for agriculture. For 13 years, when he was on the government side, the Liberals and he failed Canada's producers and agriculture sector. In the budget we put $1.5 billion into the agriculture sector. This is good for Canada's economy.
The member for Markham—Unionville talked about how the Liberals had all these great plans for Canada's youth. We are giving a $500 tax credit for the cost of amateur sports, to encourage physical activity, to help youth and support Canadian families. 
I know the Liberals believe in a government run nine to five day care. We believe in empowering parents, so that they have more power and choice in how they want to raise their kids, and how they want to build their own families, not a government run bureaucratic day care empowered by the Liberals to manage people's families.
My question for the hon. member is, why does he not get it, Canadians support this budget? It is going to become law and Canada is going to be the better for it.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the budget will become law because the Bloc members would otherwise lose so many seats that they will support it. That is a fact. It is also a fact that two-thirds of Canadians question the motives. They believe that the government is acting only to get elected and not for the good of the country.
I am saying to the government that this will not work. Canadians will not believe the government. The member has once again repeated the fiction, the terminological inexactitude that income tax was cut, when in fact the gentleman from Souris and all Canadians, when they get their paycheques in July, will know that it went up. The member cannot even tell the difference between up and down.
I am not sure that Canadians like the “government knows best” social engineering characteristic of the government. The government is making value choices for families. The government says sports are worth--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. I know hon. members are enjoying the debate, but we must be able to hear the member who has the floor.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.
Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member for Markham—Unionville that this is a meanspirited budget. It does very little for hard-working families. The member is right. It is clearly an attack on the most vulnerable in our community. 
I think the Conservative government has simply taken a page out of the Liberal government's record on how to write a budget. The Liberal government has never presented a budget that was any more friendly for the vulnerable in our community. I am thinking about the hard-working seniors in my community. They have worked hard all their lives. They have done everything right and yet they are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.
There is nothing in the budget for seniors in any of our communities. Yes, the government talks about some income tax credit that will benefit very few seniors in my community of Hamilton Mountain. Where is the real increase to public pension benefits? Where is the increase to CPP? Where is the long awaited increase to the OAS and the GIS? Those are things for which seniors have been clamouring for years. They did not get them under the Liberals. It is another missed opportunity under the Conservative government as well.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, some of what the hon. member has said makes sense, but she is a little bit short on facts. The Liberals did increase the GIS in a substantial way, so she does not know her facts.
It is also the case that the NDP members have lost all credibility in this area because they have sacrificed the child care system, the aboriginals and the environment for the sake of 10 seats in the House of Commons.
The Speaker: We will move on now to statements by members, but members need not worry. We will have four and a half more minutes of questions and comments when the debate resumes later this day. 

Statements By Members
AgricultureMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Farmers Council, the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture and the Nova Scotia Agricultural College made a proposal in January 2005 to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to establish the Atlantic alternative energy centre to determine ways to reduce energy costs and harmful emissions, using agricultural products.
If approved, this group will take the lead in coordinating regional research, which will help farmers in reducing costs and energy consumption while also reducing pollution and greenhouse gases.
The new Conservative government has committed to have every litre of gas and diesel fuel contain 5% alternative fuel. This organized research effort would go a long way toward achieving this goal in Atlantic Canada.
The Minister of Agriculture recently showed great support for the Atlantic Canadian farmers when he made his announcement about the moratorium on CAIS clawbacks. By giving his approval to this application for an alternative energy centre, he will give another great boost to the environment and to the agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada. I urge him to do so.
Health Partners InternationalHon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to present recognition certificates to over 50 volunteers from Health Partners International.
Since its inception in 1990, Health Partners International has donated over $180 million in medicines, vaccines and medical supplies to help improve the health of adults and children in over 100 countries.
Health Partners International transcends all ethnic and religious boundaries. It has shipped medical products to regions all over the world. It was there for Pakistanis, following their horrendous earthquake. It was in Southeast Asia, following the devastating tsunami in 2004. It was in Guyana after it suffered major flooding.
Filling Pierre Elliott Trudeau's dream to provide Cuba with much needed medical products, Health Partners International has also established a program that brings medical supplies to Cubans.
On behalf of the residents of Mississauga—Brampton South, I would like to thank Health Partners International for helping heal a hurting world.
Buffet of Nations in SherbrookeMr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Sherbrooke help centre for new Canadians held its 35th Buffet of Nations on May 6. 
The Sherbrooke help centre for new Canadians opened its doors more than 50 years ago, its purpose to welcome new arrivals to the region by easing their integration into the community's social, economic and cultural life.
The Buffet of Nations showcased the cuisine of 36 countries, and over 700 guests took part in this round-the-world gastronomical tour. There is nothing quite like it in Quebec or in Canada.
I would like to congratulate the staff of the Sherbrooke help centre for new Canadians and the volunteer members of the Buffet of Nations organizing committee. 
ImmigrationMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the residents in my riding of Ottawa Centre are fortunate to live in a city that celebrates its diversity. Every year, we welcome thousands of newcomers to Ottawa.
We are also fortunate to have two organizations, the Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization and the Catholic Immigration Centre, which help those who have recently arrived in Canada to participate fully in our community and ensure that newcomers are given the resources they require to successfully settle in the city.
This benefits all of us. Immigration increases our cultural and economic productivity.
However, the inequities between provinces in settlement and language training funding for new immigrants must be addressed. New measures must be taken to ensure Canada is able to support the talents, skills and experience that new Canadians can bring to our country so that we, as a country, can surely flourish.
The BudgetMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise today on the third anniversary of my first election as a member of Parliament.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of Perth--Middlesex who first gave me the honour of being their representative in the byelection and, now, the people of Perth-Wellington who have twice sent me back.
Never have I been so proud to be a member of Parliament as I have been these past couple of weeks. The recent budget reminded me why I am a Conservative. The budget contained items that are important to me, important to the people of my riding and to the people of Canada.
It will help hard-working post-secondary students pay for their education. Our municipalities will benefit from the billions of dollars that have been earmarked for infrastructure. Our farmers are the best in the world. Finally, the budget saw a great investment in our agriculture communities.
This is a budget for Canadians, and I am very proud to support it.
The United WayHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Dr. Carl “Bucky” Buchanan has recently chaired the United Way's campaign on Cape Breton Island in an effort to raise funds for much needed programs.
This campaign has surpassed the expectation of a half million dollars. It raised over $600,000 to improve the lives of many Cape Bretoners through the sister agencies that work with the United Way.
In addition to the commitment made by Carl “Bucky” Buchanan, many individuals have donated not only money but their time and effort to make this campaign a tremendous success.
 As member of Parliament for Sydney—Victoria, I congratulate Dr. Carl “Bucky” Buchanan and the United Way for the success of their campaign and wish them every success in future fundraising activities.
We do support the United Way because we live there and we care.
Child CareMr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of government's universal child care plan that will start flowing to parents in July. One of the elements of this plan is Canada's universal child care benefit. This benefit will provide all parents with $100 per month for each child under six, even those who do not or could ever hope to benefit from a nine to five daycare setting.
The benefit will help Canadian parents choose the kind of care that is best for their children because moms and dads are the real experts. Only they know what is right for the unique needs of their kids and their families. In contrast to the previous government's plan, which offered nothing in direct support to parents, our universal benefit will help all Canadian families in a real tangible way.
In my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac our program provides real help to shift workers and farmers as well as young professionals.
 On January 23 Canadians voted change for parents. We offered it, they voted for it and we will deliver.
Émilie AganierMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to congratulate Émilie Aganier, a proud representative of the Beauharnois figure skating club, on her wonderful performance.
Émilie won a bronze medal at the National STARSkate Championships held here in Ottawa last April.
I especially want to congratulate her for the discipline and perseverance she must have shown to win this medal during a Canada-wide competition against eleven other provincial champions. 
I believe I speak on behalf of her coach and the other members of the Beauharnois figure skating club when I say, Émilie, your performance was wonderful and we are proud of you.
Prince George—Peace RiverHon. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as this is my first formal opportunity in this 39th Parliament, I would like to thank the residents of Prince George—Peace River for entrusting me with the honour and the privilege of representing them for the fifth consecutive time.
More has been accomplished in the last 13 weeks under our Conservative government than in nearly 13 years under the former Liberals.
 For the residents and businesses in my constituency, this means substantive tax relief. Because, as we all know, what is a surplus to a Liberal is overtaxtion to a Conservative.
The forest industry in my riding has seen our government take swift action to resolve the long-standing softwood lumber dispute with the United States. We have also committed $400 million over the next two years to address the disastrous mountain pine beetle infestation.
Farmers throughout my riding will also benefit from an additional $1.5 billion in federal agricultural support this year.
 My constituents also welcome a government that finally intends to hold criminals accountable for their actions.
I am proud to continue my work of representing the hard-working people of Prince George—Peace River.
George Hull CentreMr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, more than six million, or one in five Canadians, is affected by mental illness. It is even more devastating when the person affected is a child.
The George Hull Centre for Children and Families in my riding of Etobicoke Centre has earned a distinguished reputation for its exemplary spectrum of children's mental health services and support systems for their families for the past 20 years.
Affiliated with the University of Toronto, the centre's multidisciplinary team has attracted advanced practitioners from around the world. This caring facility would not function without the dedicated volunteer board of directors, chaired by Brigid Murphy, and the excellent work done by executive director, Elizabeth Ridgley.
On behalf of the House of Commons, I commend the George Hull Centre for Children and Families for its caring and compassionate work with some of our most vulnerable young Canadians, those fighting and winning the battle with mental illness.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberals say the darndest things. According to the Liberal leadership wannabe from Kings—Hants, questioning the terms of the Liberal Kyoto agreement indicates a lack of credibility on environmental issues, but not long ago the very same member told the House that: 
 The job losses from Kyoto ratification will affect all regions of Canada. 
He said the Liberal government's Kyoto plan:
 --was basically written on the back of an airplane napkin on the way to Kyoto. There was no long term planning. There was no real negotiation...In fact it was a last minute, hastily drafted agreement. 
He even said that the Liberal government:
 --could not organize a two car funeral, let alone implement a Kyoto agreement. 
Then the member for Kings—Hants stood in the House and voted against the Kyoto accord. 
Since the member for Kings—Hants equates questioning Kyoto with a lack of commitment to the environment, I look forward to his resignation as the Liberal environment critic. I also cannot help wondering which face he is going to show on the Liberal leadership campaign posters he has in mind.
Child CareMs. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the so-called $1,200 choice in child care scheme was announced, the NDP proved it was bogus, so in the budget it received a fancy new name, the universal child care benefit, and a few improvements. But it is still not $1,200, it is still not child care, and it is not universal, not even close.
The government is still taxing the benefit and eliminating the $249 young child supplement. Working families will see very little at the end of the day, not as much as a lot of wealthy Canadians, according to the latest from the Caledon Institute.
In fact, single working parents will get the least. They may see about $500 or $600. These people need child care the most. They need to earn a living to feed their families, but wealthy stay at home spouses of high income earners will see the highest benefit of all at $971. They need child care the least, but will see the most.
 This is not a universal benefit. It is a universal con game and a cruel joke for working families and single parents.
Conservative Party of CanadaMr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin resigned as chair of the aboriginal affairs committee after making ill-considered comments about the independence of the judiciary.
Who did the Prime Minister pick to replace him? None other than the member for Okanagan—Shuswap, the member who called--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Ajax—Pickering has the floor.
[Interjection]
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, perhaps those members will cheer the fact that this is the same member who called for reporters to be hauled off to jail. No doubt the member is going to have interesting ideas on aboriginal justice after suggesting that reporters should go to jail.
How many more Conservative MPs have these wild, eccentric ideas? Perhaps the member for Wild Rose who suggests they should be shot instead, or the member for Halton, who launched personal attacks on Canada's chief justice? Or is it the Prime Minister, who talks about accountability for everyone but himself?
The duct tape is slipping. Reformers are starting to emerge from their caves and people are now starting to see the true face of the party opposite.
Laval Association for Intellectual DisabilityMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Laval association for intellectual disability is an agency that enables persons with an intellectual disability and their families to live as normal a life as possible.
The association promotes and defends the interests of intellectually disabled persons so that they can be accepted and find a place in society. To facilitate the social integration of these individuals, the agency offers a full range of activities and services such as supportive care, workshops, physical activities, visual arts activities, cultural outings, parent support groups, respite care and an Internet café.
Recently, the association presented its annual “hats off” awards in recognition of those persons with intellectual disabilities in Laval who have made outstanding personal, academic, professional or cultural progress.
This year's five recipients are Élizabeth Comtois, Johanne Moreau, René Ascoli, Yves Guérard and Danny Beaulieu.
Congratulations to all of them.
The EnvironmentMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I always thought that political action should be prompted by a firm desire to improve things in the world around one, a firm desire to make a better future for generations to come. The environment is certainly one area where we can act now to improve living conditions for future generations.
The Liberal government understood this, and that is why it introduced a host of programs to fight climate change. That is also why it always played a leading role in environmental issues on the international scene, earning recognition and praise around the world. 
But all that is changing today. Why? Because the Conservatives have decided to abandon the Kyoto protocol. They have decided to abandon the fight against climate change. In fact, they have abandoned the environment.
This is a sad time in our history, because in abandoning all that, they are doing serious damage to Canada's image. More importantly, they are undermining future generations, and as long as there is hope—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burlington.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the Liberals have their own special sense of reality.
 We are all aware that the Gomery inquiry found that sponsorship money found its way to Liberal coffers. Just two weeks ago, a Liberal leadership contender, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, admitted that there was still money lost. He said, “I am all for a full accounting of the money that was lost in that scandal...”.
 However, by yesterday he had changed his mind. He was claiming to be shocked that anyone would suggest that dirty money was ever used by the Liberal Party.
What is shocking is the Liberal Party's flip-flops on this issue. Instead of defending the indefensible, the Liberal Party and its leadership contenders should start defending transparency and come clean with what happened to the missing sponsorship cash.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members making statements will want to bear in mind the guidelines respecting Standing Order 31 statements. I would hope that this would serve as a reminder. I think some of the statements came close to the line today. I will put in member's minds House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 363, where it states:
 --when the procedure for “Statements by Members” was first put in place, Speaker Sauvé stated that 
 Members may speak on any matter of concern and not necessarily on urgent matters only; 
 Personal attacks are not permitted; 
 Congratulatory messages, recitations of poetry and frivolous matters are out of order. 
Then it adds:
 These guidelines are still in place today, although Speakers tend to turn a blind eye to the latter restriction. 
I stress that it is only the latter restriction to which we will turn a blind eye. Speakers do want to caution members against using Standing Order 31 statements for personal attacks.
We will turn to oral questions.

Oral Questions
The Speaker: Order, please. We must have some order, even if this is Friday.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a disturbing pattern is beginning to emerge regarding the government's treatment of parliamentary officers, a pattern of absolute contempt.
The Prime Minister refuses to work with the Ethics Commissioner, dismisses the Information Commissioner and attempts to misrepresent the Official Languages Commissioner in the House. Now the government has deliberately leaked a copy of the Auditor General's report.
Will the Prime Minister tell us who in his government leaked their copy of the Auditor General's advance report?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we reject the premise of the hon. member's question. We share her concern about the apparent leak of this information. An internal investigation has been launched to see if this information was leaked from a government source. We certainly hope it was not, and if it was, anybody responsible will be held accountable because this is a government of accountability.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General gave the government six numbered copies of her report. Everyone who receives these numbered copies has to sign for them and give their personal guarantee of confidentiality. Auditor Generals' reports have never been leaked in the past, and Ms. Fraser is very upset about this. The Auditor General says she has strong suspicions about the source of the leak, and it is not her office and it is not the printer. She plans to confront the source.
Will the Prime Minister name the perpetrator and fire the guilty party even if it turns out to be his own chief of staff?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely scurrilous. I can assure the hon. member that her completely baseless allegation is not true. I can further assure her that the government is investigating the matter and will hold accountable anybody who may be responsible.
On the subject of leaks, we had a Liberal government that for years leaked the entire budget before it was actually presented in the House.
This is a government respects confidential information and will hold accountable those who leak it.
FrancophonieMarlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the previous government never leaked a report of an officer of Parliament.
Yesterday, the government caused a serious diplomatic incident, embarrassing Canada. Francophonie Secretary General Abdou Diouf was subjected to a body search at the airport in Toronto, even though he was travelling on a diplomatic passport. The minister responsible knew nothing about this new diplomatic protocol, when the matter was raised in the House yesterday. 
Will Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who will be travelling to Canada next week, be warned about this procedure?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that transportation safety is always very important. I have been informed of this incident at the airport in Toronto, which was due to a misunderstanding. It was an unfortunate incident.
My colleague, the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, and myself will be taking part in that conference in Saint-Boniface, Manitoba.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government seriously tarnished Canada's reputation by subjecting His Excellency Abdou Diouf, Secretary General of la Francophonie and former president of Senegal, to a body search. Protocol requires a government minister to welcome guests like Mr. Diouf to Canada.
Why did the Minister for la Francophonie not do her duty yesterday? Why did she not greet His Excellency, Mr. Diouf, herself in Toronto?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the minister is currently in Manitoba. She has met the secretary general, who is in Canada to attend the ministerial conference of la Francophonie on conflict prevention and human security. I will take that opportunity to speak directly to Mr. Diouf and let him know that Canada feels this is very unfortunate. I repeat, this is very unfortunate. 
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the minister said this was very unfortunate. Yet, when pressed for answers by journalists yesterday, the Minister for la Francophonie refused to make amends.
To add insult to injury, the same minister claims to have welcomed the secretary general well. First, it was impolite of the Prime Minister to cancel his appointment at the last minute, and then the Minister for la Francophonie was unable to greet him. When will the comedy of errors stop? When will the government offer publicly a formal apology to His Excellency, Mr. Diouf?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong in that regard. The Prime Minister never had such an appointment with the secretary general of la Francophonie. There was, however, an appointment with the Governor General which was cancelled by Mr. Diouf. The Prime Minister and the entire government are very pleased to welcome Mr. Diouf to Canada and looking forward to fruitful agreements coming out of this weekend in Winnipeg.
The EnvironmentMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the environment minister is only adding to her ludicrous statements when she claims that implementing Kyoto will force us to abandon the train, plane and automobile. She was even more ridiculous when she added that we would have to abandon electricity and even agriculture. This is incredible.
Rather than repeating these irresponsible statements, should the minister not be honest and say, purely and simply, that her government's choice has already been made, that it has decided to drop Kyoto and that it does not recognize how urgently greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister, the Prime Minister and this party are committed to clean air and a clean air act and a cleaning up of Canada. 
On numerous occasions I have approached the Bloc party and the critic asking for input on Kyoto, on climate change and on clean air. Time and time again that party has refused to work with us. We need to take this seriously. I am open to the Bloc to deal with clean air.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that yesterday, we had an entire day to talk to the government about Kyoto.
A recent Canadian report to the UN recommends that the objectives of the second phase of Kyoto not only be reduced, but that they be made voluntary. The report also asks that the deadlines be extended and that countries such as Canada, whose economies depend on the development of natural resources, be granted various exemptions. 
Is this not further proof that the minister's true intention in Bonn is to convince participating members to abandon the Kyoto protocol?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a signatory to 59 international agreements on greenhouse gases and the environment. Kyoto is one of those agreements. 
Canada will develop a realistic and effective approach to reducing greenhouse gases. I hope the Bloc will be part of that. We need to work together to clean up Canada.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment maintains that meeting the Kyoto targets is impossible. However, finding alternatives to coal, increasing automobile efficiency and asking oil companies to make an effort costing them nothing more would allow Canada to substantially meet its target. Rather than making a fool of herself by citing catastrophic scenarios, will the minister admit that there are simple, effective and realistic means of meeting the Kyoto targets and that they only require a bit of good will?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the government is turning over a new leaf on the environment with a commitment to Canadians that the money for the environment will be spent on the Canadian environment. The government will work in collaboration with the provinces and territories, and that includes Quebec, to move toward a 5% average renewable content in Canadian fuels. It is a good idea. It is one positive step.
We all need to work together to clean up Canada.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has decided to abolish the EnerGuide program, which seeks to improve the energy balance of houses.
Will the minister acknowledge that until she knows where she is headed, it is completely irresponsible to axe programs such as EnerGuide?
Mr. Christian Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government was elected to provide responsible government. It is a known fact that the return to taxpayers from the EnerGuide program is only 50 cents out of every dollar spent. A review of programs is under way to determine which ones are effective and which ones are not. In this way, Canadians will have the energy efficiency they deserve.
National DefenceMs. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we learned today that just like the Liberals, the Conservatives are now flirting with the idea of dragging Canada into missile defence, this time in Europe. Reports indicate that the NATO plans are virtually identical to the U.S. plans for missile defence in North America, the very same plans that Canadians successfully opposed.
Can the minister confirm that Canada's representatives to NATO endorsed initial plans for ballistic missile defence in Europe?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, the headline in the papers today refers to a study that was initiated during the Chrétien government. The Liberals supported the initiation of the study. It has to do with the possibility of creating a ballistic missile shield in Europe, of which we will not be a part. I think everyone knows the government's position on ballistic missile defence.
 The NDP voted this week against Norad. I am wondering now if it is going to vote against NATO.
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, Canadians stopped their government from engaging in missile defence once and I am confident they will do it again.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister committed that any involvement in missile defence would be brought to the House for a free vote. Will the government commit today to hold a free vote in Parliament on Canada's role in missile defence for Europe before the Prime Minister's meeting with NATO leaders this fall, or was that just another broken Conservative promise?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, we stand by our statements during the campaign and subsequent to the campaign. If we reached the stage where it appeared that we were willing to enter into an agreement on ballistic missile defence, we would bring it before Parliament for a vote.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence refused to answer whether or not he met with the members of the project team responsible for the truck purchase for the military. Let me help the minister remember by informing him that it has been confirmed that he did meet with the members of the project team. 
The minister should stop hiding the truth. He should do the honest and honourable thing by telling the House whom he met with, how many times, and when.
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday twice, I followed all the rules in the past, I am following all the rules now, and I am going to follow all the rules in the future.
I find it very interesting that the official opposition critic for defence never asked anything about defence. He is too embarrassed because if he asks questions on defence, he is going to have to wear the record of the Liberals.
Ujjal Dosanjh: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals provided the largest single budget increase in the last 20 years for defence.
Despite his repetition of his compliance with the previous standards, where he came from and all the rules, the fact is that no prime minister in Canadian history has appointed a highly paid lobbyist as minister for a department that he had lobbied. Because of his past, the minister is absolutely in a potential conflict of interest. He is dealing with a $1 billion contract for the purchase of trucks, where Stewart Stevenson, one of the former lobbyists, is the leading--
The Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. member's time expired some time back.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, now we see why that member ended up with two seats after the provincial election in B.C.
The member talked about the past of the Minister of National Defence. Let us talk about what Mr. David Rudd, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies said about the past. He said:
 [The minister] has inherited a capacity problem from the two previous governments. It takes years to rebuild a force suffering from a decade or more of neglect. 
Here are another few words about the minister's past. For over 30 years he proudly wore the uniform of this nation and served the Canadian military, unlike any previous minister of national defence.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most importantly, the Minister of National Defence has worked as a lobbyist. As we have seen, he had a very long client list.
Now we know, because he himself told us, that he lobbied actively in seven different departments for Stewart Stevenson, one of the first companies to bid on a billion-dollar National Defence truck contract. 
Imagine: as a lobbyist, he was paid thousands of dollars a month to be familiar with every nut and bolt in the trucks he wanted to sell to National Defence.
Can the minister confirm that he attended all of Stewart Stevenson's corporate briefing sessions so that he could do his job well?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I think I have said four times that I followed all the rules in the past. I am following all the rules today. When the new rules are put in, I will meet all those rules in the future. 
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I realize it must be embarrassing for the government to have him as its Minister of National Defence. I realize he has to read the lines the Prime Minister gives him, but the truth is that thanks to its investment in its former lobbyist, Stewart Stevenson has unprecedented access to the minister, and certainly has an undeniable commercial advantage, which exposes the government to legal action before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. 
Given the evidence of this conflict of interest, will the minister protect Canadian taxpayers by doing the only honourable thing worthy of his rank—he was once a general—and cease his involvement in this issue? 
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, as I have said five times, I followed all the rules in the past. I am following all the rules now. I will follow them all in the future. I find it really ironic that the member opposite who was tangled in ad scam should be asking questions about ethics.
FrancophonieMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government did nothing to enhance its reputation yesterday in the way it received the secretary general of La Francophonie, Abdou Diouf. One would have expected a dignitary of Mr. Diouf's stature to be received by someone other than a customs officer and spared a body search.
Will the government admit that welcoming a foreign dignitary in this way gives a very poor impression of Canada and calls for an inquiry into Canada's diplomatic services before another such blunder is made? 
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
I repeat that the secretary general is in Canada to take part in the Francophonie's ministerial conference conflict prevention and human security. I will be travelling to that conference today, and I hope to have the opportunity to speak with him about this.
I repeat again that this incident is highly regrettable.
Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, not only did the Minister for La Francophonie not see fit to apologize to the secretary general, but the Prime Minister, who was to have met with him, skipped that meeting. What a fine mark of respect for La Francophonie.
Does the government intend to apologize to the secretary general of La Francophonie, because an apology is urgently needed?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the Prime Minister did not have an meeting planned with the secretary general of La Francophonie. A meeting had been planned with the Governor General,but it was cancelled by Mr. Diouf. The government is very pleased to welcome Mr. Diouf to Canada, to Saint-Boniface, which is a very important francophone community in western Canada.
There will be productive discussions with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for La Francophonie.
Regional DevelopmentMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives were elected in Jonquière—Alma by playing up the advantages to the region of having a cabinet minister represent it. During the last election campaign, the current Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec promised that once elected he would implement an ambitious economic recovery plan, which he pompously described as a “Marshall plan”.
The minister started to back off this week by admitting that he did not have the means to fulfill his ambitions. How can the minister explain such a change of heart four months after the last election?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, indeed, hon. members know that the Economic Development Agency of Canada offers various programs to help the regions of Quebec. Despite these existing programs and despite the good will of previous governments, a fact remains: the regions—many of which are resource regions, I might add—continue to empty out. We are losing our young people. Furthermore, the economic situation is not really getting better. 
With regard to the Marshall plan adopted during the second world war, I must also add that $14 billion was invested in four sectors, which generated 30 glorious years of prosperity. I want to apply this example to accomplish more for the regions of Quebec.
Robert Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and Conservatives are behaving the same way. Before the election, they create expectations and when it comes time to honour their commitments, they vanish.
Can the minister acknowledge that he was unable to get new money in the budget and that is the reason why he is unable to keep his promise?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois are quite good at asking questions. They ask and ask again, but they never get results.
That said, the desire of the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec continues to be to try to find ways to help resource regions, those with a declining population in particular. I am trying to free up, from the $200 million allocated to the department, an envelope to contribute to diversifying the economic activity of regions with a declining population. That is the ultimate priority.
The EnvironmentPablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, last December, all eyes were on Montreal as it hosted the United Nations conference on climate change. The conference was very successful and Canada was applauded around the globe for its leadership in matters of the environment. This Canadian success was praised by heads of state, environmental groups and the international press.
Today, the minister has confirmed something for us: the Conservatives are abandoning this leadership, they are abandoning the Kyoto protocol and they are abandoning the environment. Why did the Minister of the Environment become, so quickly and so unfortunately, the minister of abandonment?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic that it is this party that is working hard on providing clean air, clean land and clean water. It is that party over there that for 13 years had an opportunity to clean up pollution and it did absolutely nothing. This party, this Prime Minister, and this environment minister are working hard. We will keep our promises. We will be accountable.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, our party has nothing to learn from a party that abandons the environment. It is not only Canada's image that is suffering at this time. There is also a cost involved in abandoning climate change, a cost in abandoning the environment, and costs that are linked to public health, quality of life and our children's future.
Considering all of this, does the minister not see that this policy of abandonment is becoming extremely costly?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about costs. The conference referred to by the honourable member cost Canadian taxpayers $40 million. This conference did not reduce greenhouse gas emissions by even a single tonne. In actual fact, when the Liberals were in power, greenhouse gas emissions increased by 35%. What an environmental record!
Hon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment says Canada cannot meet its Kyoto targets. If, on the advice of her U.S. republican pollster, she wanted a made in Canada plan, why then did she cancel a made in Canada program that would have met at least 10% of our Kyoto target? Why has she cancelled an investment of $538 million in Ontario to help close four coal-fired electricity generating plants by 2009?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and again, this is the party that is going to show action and achievable results on the environment. We will be supporting effective programs. We will not be supporting Liberal programs that did not work.
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has written to the finance minister of Ontario to explain that $208 million of the $538 million will be diverted from the coal plants into public transit, making the coal plant plan impossible. The minister has effectively cancelled the single largest initiative to reduce greenhouse gases in this country. That was an entirely made in Canada plan. It would have helped replace coal-generated electricity with hydro-generated electricity from Manitoba and Quebec.
Given the urgency of global warming, will the minister immediately restore all funding to this made in Canada solution?
Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the government have been very clear that we are strongly supportive of the Government of Ontario. The accord reached last May in the dying days of the Liberal government, when the gun was put to its head, will be fully respected by the government.
However, what is odd is for this member to talk about the provincial Liberal government closing coal-fired plants. It made a commitment in the last election campaign to close them by 2007, a commitment it has totally abandoned.
Canada-U.S. BorderMr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the former Liberal revenue minister claimed we could not arm our border guards. Remarkably, he said it would make our border guards 3,000 accidents waiting to happen.
While the Liberals think of our border guards as glorified tax collectors, the government understands the importance of their position. Our border guards are the front lines at protecting Canadian borders and deserve to be fully equipped to do that job.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety tell us what is being done for our border guards?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Peterborough for probably one of the best questions of the day.
Our new government is committed to protecting Canadian families and communities. We have backed up our commitment to security by investing $1.4 billion in the budget for more police, border security and public safety. This includes $101 million, over two years, to begin arming border officers and eliminating work-alone posts. We value the work of the men and women on the front lines, and a promise made, a promise kept.
Grain TransportationMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again, the farmers get a bad deal from our federal government. In 2004 alone, farmers paid $4,329 per car, per year, for railway hopper car maintenance while the cost to the railways was only $1,686.
Will the Prime Minister ask our Auditor General to investigate why the railways have been overpaid by farmers for hopper car maintenance since 1992 to the tune of over $730 million?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the FRCC had purchased the cars, there would have been lease costs. I think everybody can see that. Those lease costs would have been added on and the farmers would be paying more money for the service. We are saying, essentially, that the decision that we have taken has saved the Canadian farmers $50 million. That is performance.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, a classified document has shown us once again that agricultural producers have paid much too much since 1992.
Can the Prime Minister tell us exactly when the government will reimburse farmers the $730 million they have already paid, and can he tell us if he is prepared to ask the Auditor General to launch an inquiry into this matter?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government has promised $750 million in aid under the grains and oilseeds programs. To date $515 million has been paid out to farmers. This amount—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Jacques Gourde:  Mr. Speaker, we know that producers need help now, and it is now that we are giving them help.
Equalization PaymentsMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the Prime Minister promised that he would honour the agreement signed by the provinces and the previous government to transfer $7 billion to the province of Ontario. Once again, it seems it is promises made, promises broken, for the government. The finance minister sent a letter last week to Ontario pledging to shortchange the province by $3 billion.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee Ontario that it will receive the full $7 billion that was promised?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the government did no such thing. The province of Ontario was promised that there would be a keeping of this agreement. It will be kept. The money has been allocated. The finance minister has written to the province confirming this. Only the opposition is in doubt about that.
Yasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, the light of truth has totally dimmed on the government side. It does not know what it is. The government simply is not taking the concerns of the Premier of Ontario seriously. 
Why is it that other premiers get several meetings with the Prime Minister while the Premier of Ontario cannot seem to get anyone in the PMO to return his call?
The Prime Minister made a commitment to the people of Ontario yet the recent federal budget makes no mention of fulfilling those commitments. When will Ontario see the $3 billion that seems to have gone missing between the election and now?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that seems to have gone missing is the hon. member's hearing. In fact, I repeat, the government is committed to keeping the federal-Ontario agreement. The money has been clearly allocated in the budget and it will be delivered to the province of Ontario.
Canada-U.S. BorderMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the United States is moving forward to implement the law that requires everyone crossing its borders to carry a passport. The legislation has the potential to cripple our tourism industry. Recently, both the ministers of foreign affairs and of public safety met with their American counterparts on this issue.
However, the recent federal budget gave no indication whatsoever of funding for programs to offset this serious challenge. Why has the Prime Minister refused to fight this and done absolutely nothing to lessen the huge negative impacts?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary, the Minister of Public Safety, the Prime Minister and I took the occasion to raise this issue when we were in the United States speaking with our counterparts. This is obviously a situation that is going to continue to evolve. There is legislation in place in the United States of America. That is the reality that the opposition appears to be overlooking.
The opposition had an opportunity to do something and it did absolutely nothing as it did on so many files. We are going to be in the loop. Our relations with the United States are now at a point where we are being provided information at a pace that we can absolutely deal with this situation. We continue to be amazed at the opposition's questions on this file.
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, I asked a reasonable question and Canadians deserve reasonable answers. Please answer the question. 
Why is nothing being done to help hard hit border communities? Time is running out. Tourism-based communities are running out of time and we really do need a clear direction from the government. Please, just answer the question.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to please just recognize the reality. He was part of the government that had 13 years and it degraded the relationship with the United States of America.
We are involved in ongoing discussions on this issue. We have taken steps already to alleviate much of the problem at the border. It has been announced that we are now arming our border guards. This is an important part of the overall security picture of which the Americans were concerned. We continue to have good working relations on this file and we will be there when the solutions arrive.
National DefenceMr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 10 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, released a statement that it would pursue discussions to put a missile defence shield in place.
Since Canada is a member of this organization, will the government tell the House what its position on NATO's intentions is?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, this is a study that was initiated around 2002 with an agreement of the Chrétien government. It has now come to its result. The possibility of a missile shield for Europe is being looked at. We would not be involved. If we were to get into ballistic missile defence, we would have to go through a whole process of negotiation at which point we would bring it to Parliament for approval.
Robert Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the government must be aware that a significant majority of the population, especially in Quebec, opposes the missile defence shield because this project could be the first step in a new arms race.
Is the government ready to participate in a project that would include sending weapons into space?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out before to the hon. member that this has to do with a shield in Europe. We are not in Europe; we are in North America.
Employment InsuranceMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last spring an all party committee on EI reform made recommendations to assist workers in seasonal industries. The past Liberal government adopted many of these recommendations and initiated a number of pilot projects.
From this committee, only one party put forward a dissenting report. Unfortunately for seasonal workers in our country, it was the new Conservative government. Now the inaction of the minister on this file will place the benefits of 100,000 claimants at risk.
Why does the government not understand and not respect our seasonal workers?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should be aware, the government does place a high value on our workers. They are the ones who make us competitive. They are the ones who make us productive. 
That is why I was pleased to meet with several of my opposition colleagues to discuss these pilot programs. There are several, but as I explained earlier to members opposite, a pilot program is just that. It is a trial. It is not a long term thing. It is to try to see if things will work before we make them permanent. We need to evaluate them and get the facts.
The BudgetMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals dismiss the value of helping families with the expense of enrolling their children in sports activities. The government values the benefit of sports and that was evident in last week's budget.
Could the Minister for Sport explain the value of the sports tax credit to Canadians and Canadian families?
Hon. Michael Chong (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Peace River for working hard to ensure that budget 2006 contained measures to help families. 
During the election campaign, we made commitments to create a $500 tax credit to help parents with their children's sports and physical fitness fees. Budget 2006 delivers on this commitment.
 Effective January 1 next year, parents can claim these fees. This will put $160 million into community level children's sports and physical fitness. That is an average of $500,000 per riding. This is great news for Canadian children, great news for the sport community and great news for Canada.
Auditor General's ReportMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General yesterday characterized the leak of her report as an affront to Parliament. 
Since we know the Auditor General reports are routinely provided to the senior officials of a subject department, will the government today guarantee Canadians and the House that government members and their political staff are not the source of this leak?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, once again, we addressed this question earlier. We can guarantee the House and the hon. member that all necessary measures will be taken to try to identify the source of this unacceptable leak. Anyone found to be responsible will be held accountable in an appropriate fashion.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, that is interesting because the Auditor General has virtually guaranteed the public accounts committee that it was not her department.
 If the minister is not prepared on behalf of the government today to guarantee that it is not a government member or any of their staff, then it is not acceptable for the government to investigate the government.
 Therefore, will the minister today call in the RCMP to ensure we get a thorough, honest investigation on what happened and ensure it does not happen again?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, once again, we are concerned about this leak. The government has been criticized by that member's party as well as other opposition parties for being too secretive. Now what we are clearly concerned about is that confidential information remain confidential and that people who are responsible for leaking confidential information are held accountable. The government is committed to that, and we will act accordingly.
Forest IndustryMark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian lumber industry has been warned that the framework in the softwood lumber agreement accepted last month undercuts NAFTA. The industry has been told that the U.S. will continue to violate trade agreements if it is allowed to tamper with NAFTA.
Why has the Conservative government allowed the Canadian forest industry to be short-changed by $1 billion? Why is it putting NAFTA in jeopardy?
Ms. Helena Guergis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will take no lessons from any Liberal in the House on negotiating or timeliness. The previous Liberal government failed the softwood lumber industry. This Prime Minister and this government succeeded in returning $4 billion in duties and ensuring that we have stable and predictable access.
AgricultureMr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the cooperative system is a fundamental element of the Canadian rural landscape on which farmers rely.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what the government will do to promote the sustainability of the cooperative system in the agriculture sector?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
In its latest budget, the government has introduced a measure to treat agricultural cooperative dividends as a tax deferral. This measure will benefit many Canadian farmers who are members of agricultural cooperatives. 
The EnvironmentMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Minister of Natural Resources time and time again stand in the House and try to explain away why the cuts to the EnerGuide program happened, saying there is 50¢ on the dollar, a spin on bureaucracy. Yesterday the deputy minister of Natural Resources stood in committee and said that the costs were around 12¢ on the dollar. Wrong on the file, wrong on the environment.
What commitments will the government make when it heads to Germany next week to meet with the international committee on climate change to not further embarrass Canadians and to make some strong commitments on the environment?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, there was no mistake in that case. What the minister said was that 50 cents on the dollar goes to taxpayers, and that is what is unacceptable.
Canada--U.S. BorderClaude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec intends to take a common stand with Vermont on the mandatory passport issue. 
Does the government finally understand the major impact of this measure, and does it intend to ask the American government to reconsider its position?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the federal government, along with the provinces and industry in Canada, is very concerned about this issue. We have taken every opportunity to raise it with the Americans. We are in a position now where we are receiving great cooperation and a free flow of information on this file. We will take every opportunity to raise the concerns as we have in the past.
 I assure the hon. member this is under close scrutiny by the Prime Minister, by myself and by other members of the government.

Routine Proceedings
Report of Chief Electoral OfficerThe Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 39th general election, held on January 23, 2006.
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Certificates of NominationMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to table a certificate of nomination for a position to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.
Government Response to PetitionsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36.8 I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, regarding the Kelowna agreement.
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
 In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, April 25, the committee has considered vote 5, House of Commons under Parliament in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, less the amount voted in interim supply, and reports the same.
Criminal CodeMr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to table a bill, which would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to provide tougher penalties for persons who use the Internet to lure children for sexual purposes. The maximum penalty for this crime would increase from five years to 10 years imprisonment. If passed, together with our government's Bill C-9, it will ensure that people who use the Internet to sexually exploit our children will spend hard time in jail, not life in the comfortable surroundings of their home.
Seventy-five per cent of Canadians use the Internet, many of these being children. Statistics show that in the past two years, luring of children over the Internet has increased an astounding 1,200%.
The bill is long overdue and is a significant first step in protecting our vulnerable children against sexual predators.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Employment Insurance ActMark Eyking:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine).
Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House to introduce a bill that is not only important for many of my constituents in the riding of Sydney—Victoria, but also for many citizens in Canada who come upon an illness or an injury that removes them from the workforce. 
As a previous business owner and now a member of Parliament, I have witnessed many of my employees falling into economic difficulties because of an injury or illness. The bill would help all valued employees, going through difficult times, until they could re-enter the workforce again.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
DNA Identification ActMike Wallace:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes).
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a bill today that would amend the DNA Identification Act to provide for the establishment of a human remains index and a missing persons index to help law enforcement agencies search for and identify persons who are reported missing. 
This is a very important service to the families of those people who are missing from Burlington and from across the country.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Immigration and Refugee Protection ActNicole Demers:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171).
Mr. Speaker, for four years now, the federal government has been stubbornly delaying the creation of the appeal division under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It is time that the government respected the legislation and implemented the appeal division, which is why I am introducing this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsMark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with 56 signatures from parents in Ontario asking for medical treatment for their autistic children. They are also asking that there be the creation of academic chairs at universities in each province to teach treatment for autism.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:  With regard to the federal Chief Firearms Officer Services Policy Manual which states: “An individual may be authorized to carry restricted firearms or certain handguns (as precribed in Section 12(6) of the Firearms Act) for two purposes: (1) protection of life, and (2) lawful occupation which includes employees of the armoured vehicle industry and those who require firearms for protection of life from wild animals while working in the remote wilderness”: (a) how many “protection of life” carry permits have been issued since December 1, 1998, in each province and territory; and (b) what types of firearms were applicants permitted to carry for their own protection?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:
a) Nationally consistent standards for reporting authorizations to carry, ATC, issued and the centralized system to record the information were introduced for September 2004. ATCs have been issued as indicated in the following table between September 1, 2004, and April 20, 2006: 
Province / Territory Number of ATCs issued for protection against wildlife  Number of ATCs issued to armoured vehicle industry British Columbia/Yukon  434  2,160 Alberta/Northwest Territories 116 1,489  Saskatchewan 19  619 Manitoba/Nunavut 9  645  Ontario  235 4,712  Quebec 73 2,566 New Brunswick 0 346 Nova Scotia  0 569 Newfoundland and Labrador  0 133  Prince Edward Island 0 56  Total  886 13,295  A third category of ATCs are issued for “protection of self or others”. We cannot release data on this category since the disclosure of this information could reasonably be expected to threaten the safety of individuals.
b) The types of firearms authorized through ATCs include restricted and prohibited classes; however, specific firearm descriptions are not available. 
Garry Breitkreuz:  How many individuals are there in Canada who are considered too dangerous to own firearms including: (a) number of convicted violent criminals, prisoners and parolees; (b) number of persons prohibited from owning guns; (c) number of persons with an outstanding criminal arrest warrant; (d) number of persons charged with a violent criminal offence that are out on bail; (e) number of persons with a restraining order against them; (f) number of persons that have had their firearms licence refused or revoked; and (g) number of firearms licence holders that are under investigation for incidents that may result in their firearms licence being revoked?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Correctional Services Canada, CSC, for the purpose of responding to part a) of the member’s question, CSC has provided statistics on those federal offenders that have been convicted of murder or at least one Schedule 1 offence. For a complete list of Schedule 1 offences, please refer to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Of the 12,661 federally incarcerated offenders, 756 are serving a sentence for a 1st degree murder offence1 , 1,661 are serving a sentence for a 2nd degree murder offence2, and 7,229 are serving a sentence for a Schedule I3 offence. Total equals 9,646.
Of the 8,340 federal offenders in the community, 168 are serving a sentence for a 1st degree murder offence, 1,415 are serving a sentence for a 2nd degree murder offence, and 3,554 are serving a sentence for a Schedule I offence. Total equals 5,137. The data is as of March 26, 2006.
With regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, the Canadian Criminal Records Information Services, CCRIS, and the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, contain criminal justice information entered by police agencies and some government agencies such as the Canada Border Services Agency and Correctional Services Canada. Although able to enter appropriate information, no agency is legally obligated to do so except in the case of Youth Criminal Justice. For this reason, the statistical information provided about data in CCRIS and CPIC repositories is not reflective of overall Canadian statistics. The RCMP was able to answer sub-questions b), c), d) and e):
b) The RCMP can only provide information on the number of records within CPIC where persons are prohibited from possessing a firearm, not the number of people prohibited from owning a firearm.
The number of records entered on CPIC for “prohibited from possessing firearms” is 201,097.
It should be noted that a person could be prohibited more than once or in more than one province and each prohibition will be captured as a separate record.
c) The CPIC system is designed in a way to capture all warrants. The system was not designed to differentiate between a criminal arrest warrant, for serious offences and a warrant for arrest, for such offences as non-payment of fines. As such, to provide this information, a manual search in the system would have to take place which would represent a major undertaking that would not fall within the limited time of response.
d) The RCMP is unable to provide this information as CPIC does not maintain this kind of statistical information. The CPIC system was not devised as a statistics tool, but rather a police investigative tool. As such, each police service would have to be contacted to verify if a specific individual is released with or without conditions.
e) There are 161,916 records on CPIC for probation category with recognizance orders. These orders include peace bonds (not of a criminal nature), recognizance and restraining orders.
With regard to the Canada Firearms Centre, CAFC, the center is able to answer sub-questions f) and g) only:
f) As of March 31, 2006, there have been 6,311 licence applications refused, and 10,915 licences revoked.
g) As of March 31, 2006, 11,050 licence holders were under investigation for incidents that may result in their firearms licence being revoked. 
[Stage Direction]
 1 Defined as first degree murder, capital murder or murder by a person under 18 
 2 Defined as second degree murder or non-capital murder 
 3 Defined as being convicted of at least one offence on Schedule 1 of the CCRA 

Mr. Gerry Ritz:  With regard to the government and the Farmer Rail Car Coalition (FRCC): (a) has this group received any monetary support from any government ministry or Crown corporation and, if so, what form did this monetary support take; (b) were any third parties working on behalf of FRCC paid fees or per diems by any government ministry or Crown corporation for FRCC related work; (c) if loans were granted, what are the conditions of repayment; (d) did any registered lobbyists represent the FRCC to the government; (e) did any government ministry or Crown corporation provide any office space, administrative services or other services in kind to FRCC executives or representatives; (f) were any government funds provided to the interim management group which preceded the FRCC, or its member organizations, or any consultants or lobbyists doing work on behalf of the interim management group; and (g) if so, what are the terms and conditions of payment or repayment of any government funds disbursed?
Hon. Carol Skelton (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:
a) This group, FRCC and later 3302881 Canada Ltd., has received funding from Western Economic Diversification Canada,WD. There are five previous contracts, and one ongoing contract, as follows:
Approved Date  Federal Funding Approved  Type of Assistance July, 1996  $365,000 Conditionally Repayable Contribution (Loan)  June, 2002   $100,000 Non-repayable Contribution   Sept, 2003  $200,000 Non-repayable Contribution   Oct, 2004  $117,000  Non-repayable Contribution  Apr, 2005 $195,000  Non-repayable Contribution Current Assistance    Sept, 2005 $375,000  Non-repayable Contribution (Loan)  TOTAL ASSISTANCE $1,352,000    b) Third parties working for FRCC were not paid any funds directly by the government. The expenditures made by FRCC, which qualified for government assistance, did include payments to third party consultants. While FRCC did pay lobbyists as well, these payments were not included in the expenditures reimbursed by WD. The lobbyists were paid by funds received from other sources.
c) The first and last contracts, conditionally repayable contributions, consisted of loans: $365,000 and $375,000. Repayment is conditional upon 3302881 Canada Ltd., or subsequent company formed for this purpose, being successful in purchasing, leasing or otherwise acquiring possession, use or control of all or any portion of the federal fleet, for subsequent leasing to the railroads.
FRCC, 3302881 Canada Ltd., has a fiscal year ending July 31. Repayment is to begin after they have operated for one complete fiscal year after receiving the railcars from the federal government, either through ownership or lease-to-purchase, with the first annual payment due on August 1, 2007. Repayments will be made in five equal annual installments of $148,000.
d) As mentioned, FRCC did hire lobbyists. However, these expenses were not included in the expenditures reimbursed by WD. The funds for the lobbyists came from other sources.
e) No.
f) All funds that were provided are listed above.
g) The terms of payment of the funds to FRCC are that the funds be used to assist FRCC to negotiate transfer of the grain cars from the federal government to FRCC. Terms of repayment are as noted above. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 1 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that Question No. 1 be made an order for return and that it be tabled immediately?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Rick Casson: With regard to payments made to Canadian farmers through the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act: (a) what is the total amount of payments made to date under the authority of the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act; (b) what is the breakdown of those payments between the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick; and (c) how many individual payments have been authorized by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and, of these, how many were made as part of cost-sharing payments with provincial governments?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2006[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill for 2006.
It is never easy for those who follow our proceedings. This week, we voted on the budget. Once it is adopted, we have to be able to implement it. Implementing certain parts of the budget often requires legislative amendments to other acts of Parliament. That is more or less what is being proposed in Bill C-13. Again, and I will explain this during my speech, it does not authorize spending in all areas. The amendments contained in this bill are necessary to implement the budget. I will explain that because it is sometimes a bit complicated to follow this legislative debate and other parliamentary proceedings. I believe that if we take the time to look at this bill closely, its objectives will become obvious. 
The budget proposed a reduction in the GST. Part 1 of the budget implementation bill amends the Excise Tax Act so that the GST can be reduced from 7% to 6% as of July 1, 2006. Once we have adopted this bill, people will know that, as of July 1, 2006, the GST will be reduced by 1 percentage point, from 7% to 6%. 
This reduction requires amendments to various acts, including the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Act, which makes all this a little complicated. But the main objective of part 1 of this bill is to reduce the GST by 1 percentage point as of July 1. 
Part 2 deals with changes to income taxes. The budget included several tax-related announcements. Part 2 of Bill C-13, which we are discussing today, amends the Income Tax Act to implement the various announcements made in the budget. I will give all the provisions of the Income Tax Act that will be amended, and I will not read the section numbers, in order to simplify matters for the people who are watching.
First, the personal tax rate will be reduced by .5%. More specifically, the rate will be reduced by .25% in 2006 and .5% in 2007. The basic personal amount will increase: it will be $8,648 in 2005, $8,839 in 2006 and $8,639 in 2007.
The basic personal amount for common-law partners and spouses will also increase, allowing every Canadian to buy an additional coffee each week. That is the conclusion a number of analysts have reached. That is the decision the government made. I do have to mention, though, that there will be a reduction in income tax, amounting to $2 a week at most.
Bill C-13, which we are discussing today, will increase the child disability benefit to $2,300 effective July 1, 2006.
The refundable medical expense supplement will be increased to $1,000. Capital gains on donations of publicly listed securities and ecologically sensitive land will be eliminated. The mineral exploration tax credit will be reinstated. The eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit will be modified. The lists of expenses eligible for the disability supports deduction and the medical expenses tax credit will be expanded. The amount of home renovation and construction expenses for disabled persons or others who need assistance that caregivers can claim will be doubled.
A tax credit for adoption expenses will be offered. There will be tax deferrals for shareholders of agricultural co-ops. There will be corporate tax cuts. The corporate tax rate will be reduced from 21% to 19% by 2010. The capital tax will be eliminated on December 31, 2007.
Lastly, the carry-over period for non-capital losses and investment tax credits will be extended.
This second part deals with the changes to the Income Tax Act.
It must be understood--and I say this primarily for the benefit of our citizens who are listening--that when the time comes to discuss or to vote on a budget, the government proposes a number of topics. People need to understand that, when it comes to our support of the government's budget, the Bloc Québécois remains faithful to the principles that brought it here to this House, namely, to defend the interests of Quebeckers.
Clearly, the Bloc Québécois' primary objective continues to be resolving the fiscal imbalance. In a moment, I will cite a few figures that were music to the ears of the Liberal Party of Quebec, but that are far from the cure-all. Yet, at least this government decided to acknowledge the fiscal imbalance. When it was tabled, the budget was accompanied by a 135-page document on achieving a fiscal balance between the provinces and the federal government. The concept of the fiscal imbalance is rather simple: Ottawa has too much money, which generates a large surplus in relation to the amounts available to the provinces. 
We must always bear in mind that the federal government does not look after our everyday concerns. It is important to understand that. The federal government does not look after the everyday concerns of men and women in Quebec and Canada.
Health, for example, is an area of provincial jurisdiction, as is education. We want to ensure that our families, our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren have the education necessary to do what needs to be done to advance the economy. That comes under provincial jurisdiction.
Highway maintenance also comes under that jurisdiction, as do water and sewer systems, waste collection and all sorts of areas affecting our everyday life. Tap water is an area of provincial jurisdiction, because municipalities come under provincial jurisdiction.
Resolving the fiscal imbalance is among the Bloc Québécois' objectives. Therefore, the Conservative government's stated intention to resolve it within a specific timeframe will do for this year. But, in the 2007 budget, the government will have to clearly state that it is committed to resolving the fiscal imbalance. That was one of our reasons for supporting this budget.
In addition, the government pledged to look into the whole issue of older workers. We will recall the mass closures of manufacturing companies for various reasons, including globalization and emerging economies such as India and China, which are competing with us a lot. In many cases, the employees of these manufacturing companies had been working for 10, 15, 20 or 25 years, without necessarily approaching retirement. As a result, their age—they are often over 50—makes it difficult for them to find new jobs in other companies.
We want an older workers assistance program like the POWA to be put in place. The government promised to put one in place. Granted, no funds were earmarked for that in this budget. But the government made a firm commitment to look into and measure the costs of a program to assist older workers. We know that there is enough money in the EI fund, which employees and employer pay into, to establish such a program. A seed was sown in budget 2006; let us hope that, over the course of 2007, the federal government will successfully deal with the older workers issue and, with its next budget, resolve the fiscal imbalance. 
Bill C-13, which has been tabled in the House today, represents the implementation of certain provisions of the budget, including those requiring amendments to certain acts. I gave the example of part 2, which deals with amendments to the Income Tax Act. Part 3 amends the Excise Tax Act by repealing the excise tax on jewellery, clocks and items made from semi-precious stones, effective May 2, 2006. 
This budget contains a multitude of small provisions and, let us not forget, has returned $14 billion to taxpayers. All these small measures represent a few dollars per week, just enough to pay for a coffee I must admit. 
 The measures in a number of clauses are applicable to certain portions of industries or businesses. For example, part 3 repeals the excise tax on jewellery under the Excise Tax Act.
Part 4 amends the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act. Once again, this will facilitate the establishment of tax arrangements between the governments of specified provinces and interested Indian bands situated in those provinces.
Among other things, it will also give a certain governmental autonomy to Yukon first nations resulting in better fiscal arrangements between the first nations and the provincial governments in terms of payment of taxes. 
Part 5 contains another amendment affecting taxation under the Excise Tax Act, Excise Act, 2001, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, and the Income Tax Act, in order to harmonize various accounting, interest, penalty and related application and enforcement provisions. Again , this is to facilitate the application of a portion of the budget in legislation affecting very specific parts of certain industries.
 Part 6, to which the Bloc Québécois made a significant contribution, deals of course with the universal child care benefit, this $1,200 amount that will be paid to families as of July 1, 2006 for each child under six years of age. 
Members will recall the questions that the Bloc Québécois put to the government when it announced this benefit because it was going to be taxable and it could have an impact on other benefits such as EI benefits and children's special allowances. 
Even though the government maintained its decision to make the universal child care benefit taxable, it is amending the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act and the Children's Special Allowances Act so that this $1,200 a year benefit does not affect the other benefits covered by these acts. In other words, this will ensure that adding $1,200 to the lowest income in the family will not cause a reduction in EI benefits or in children's special allowances. 
Again, we can call this a victory for the Bloc Québécois. We would have liked for the benefit not to be taxable, but it is never easy with the Conservative Party. These people are slow to understand. 
We hope that, next year, when those who will be receiving the $100 a month or $1,200 a year benefit get a T4 from the federal government, the government will understand that it should have listened to the Bloc Québécois and not given us only half of what we were calling for, which was a non-taxable benefit for families. 
As I just explained, part 6 that relates to the universal child care benefit deals with the implementation of this measure. 
Part 7 of Bill C-13 deals with the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and makes some changes to the equalization formula. The Bloc Québécois has been consistently asking that certain parameters not be taken into account in the equalization formula. 
An adjustment was made giving Quebec $5.539 billion in fiscal equalization payments this year, an increase of $185 million over the old formula. Again, for the Bloc Québécois, balancing equalization payments is part of correcting the fiscal imbalance. Quebec has thus gained $185 million. However, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, who still tends to give in to whatever the Conservatives want, was close to a historic agreement on equalization payments. We are far from it. I hope that Mr. Charest, in all his wisdom, will understand that with respect to correcting the fiscal imbalance, Quebec has a right to expect much more than the $185 million it will get this year. Even though the Conservative Party seems at least to have recognized that the Liberals' calculation of equalization payments was wrong, $185 million this year is not a whole lot. We hope that as it drafts its 2007 budget, the government will truly understand that correcting the fiscal imbalance means correcting the equalization formula.
It has to stop calculating—or not calculating—as part of provincial revenues, all the duties on natural resources that give some provinces certain advantages over others. It has to understand that Quebec has paid. Quebeckers, our fathers and grandfathers alone have paid for setting up the entire hydroelectricity concept in Quebec. Let that be understood. Since 1970, the federal government has invested $66 billion in developing fossil fuels. Just look at the Athabasca oil sands, the Hibernia project and other carbon-based development projects—or even nuclear energy—in which the federal government has invested, when it has not invested a dime in hydroelectricity development in Quebec.
You will understand that it is very difficult, in calculating equalization, not to take into account the revenues other Canadian provinces get from their natural resources. Once again, it is an aberration of the Canadian federation. In that respect, this would not be the first time Quebeckers are treated unfairly by the federal government.
Thus, part 7 allows changes to existing legislation to redefine equalization for 2006-07. This will provide a certain advantage. Once again, this is one of the reasons that motivated the Bloc Québécois to support the budget. Quebec would nonetheless benefit from an extra $185 million.
Part 8 talks about payments to the provinces and territories. We must remember that an agreement was signed between the Government of Canada—then led by the Liberal party—and the provinces on the whole child care network matter, which was called the early learning and child care network. It is a child care program. Hon. members will recall that agreements were signed. This case is not closed. As far as I know, the Government of Quebec, Mr. Charest, has not buckled to the federal government. It still wants this agreement signed by the former government to be upheld.
This year Quebec will receive $152 million to help it continue to establish its provincial $7 a day child care network. It is a longstanding request. This great project was skilfully piloted by the Parti Québécois. That said, Quebec's child care network is now an example the world over. People come to Quebec to see how we came up with this. Other Canadian provinces seem to want to have the same service.
Because we live in a time where work-family balance is important, families need to be able to have their children cared for in a network of child care centres with qualified staff. The men and women who work in the child care centres in Quebec are qualified. They are paid fairly for the work they do. They provide children with some measure of education and enable their parents to work. This is more or less the principle on which the Parti Québécois based the world's best network of child care centres. We in Quebec take pride in that.
Obviously, we are proud that the federal government is taking part in that program this year and honoured its commitment by signing the agreement with the Government of Quebec. The problem is that the Conservative government has decided to terminate that program in 2007.
Clearly, the Bloc Québécois will vote on the budget provisions one by one, year by year. We will not necessarily support the federal government's budget next year just because we support its budget this year. We will see; we will consider each budget on its own merits. Bloc Québécois members have always acted reasonably and responsibly. That is the way we do things, and that is how we succeeded in being elected again in 51 out of 75 ridings in Quebec.
Quebeckers place their trust in the Bloc Québécois because of its unique, responsible way of defending their interests. I hold the deep conviction that regardless of what is said or discussed and even what the polls say, when a future election is held, large numbers of Quebeckers will once again entrust responsibility for federal policy to real Quebeckers who defend their interests. And only the Bloc Québécois members do this.
Mr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for illustrating all aspects of the Conservative budget and demonstrating that the Conservative Party did a good job.
The question I would like to ask him concerns specifically the $1,200 that will be given to mothers, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish all mothers a Happy Mother's Day. My colleague wants the $1,200 to be given to the Quebec government, which would then administer the sum.
Why would he chose this rather than give Canadian mothers the choice they are entitled to, that is, to receive that money and to do what they would like with it? Would he deny women this right, namely, to make their own choices when they receive the $1,200?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member congratulates us on our positive reaction to the budget and subsequently claims that if we vote on the budget, we are voting against the $1,200.
By supporting the budget, the Bloc decided to support the $1,200. What we asked was that this amount be non-taxable, which the Conservative government refused. The Bloc's message to the Conservative government is that it was the one that decided to give the $1,200 per child per year to families with children under six. The federal government and the provinces signed an agreement to establish a national child care network, although Quebec is already ahead of such a network. Continue to pay and to respect that agreement. If the government wants to give $1,200 to all such mothers, well hooray for Mother's Day. Everyone will be delighted. However, the Quebec government must continue to receive the available and necessary money so that a network can be established while keeping the fee at $7. The federal government's actions must not force the Quebec government to increase its day care fees to $25 a day. 
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member presented a very good outline of the various acts and provisions and how the budget implementation act will work. I thank him especially for mentioning jewellery and microbreweries which will help the Yukon. He also made wonderful comments on how many of the provisions that the public sees as being so great will amount to about a cup of coffee. This happens many times when people analyze a budget. 
However, I think the member went overboard when he said that the Bloc is defending the interests of Quebec. Last June when his party voted against Bill C-48, the Bloc voted against public transit, affordable housing, training, post-secondary education, and foreign aid. Quebeckers believe in all those things and the Bloc betrayed them. He said that people are being too complimentary and are bending to the Conservatives. The Bloc itself is doing that by supporting the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable.
Quebeckers do not believe in doing this on the backs of students. Quebeckers do not believe in increasing income tax rates for the poor, in abolishing Kelowna, in abolishing Kyoto. How could the Bloc members possibly vote for this budget? They have given two reasons, one being older workers. We all agree with that. A study has already been done and a pilot project is working. Yet we get weak answers from the minister that the pilot project has to be studied again. The Bloc got nothing. 
On the fiscal imbalance, the member said in his speech that Quebec received $155 million in increased equalization. My riding of Yukon received none. His province lost three times more than that on day care. It lost hundreds of millions of dollars on day care and received a promise from the government that it would study the fiscal imbalance. Is taking money away from Quebec going to solve what the Bloc believes is the fiscal imbalance?
Could the member tell me why the Bloc supported the budget?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I cannot get over my Liberal colleague criticizing me for wanting to resolve the problem of older workers, given that the Liberals did not do a thing in 13 years to deal with the EI problem. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding where my Liberal colleague is coming from.
He, however, will understand why the logic of the Bloc Québécois always remained the same. The Bloc is asking that the fiscal imbalance be resolved. As I said earlier, the federal government does not deal with any of the real everyday problems people are facing. Health, education, drinking water, garbage, transportation and highways are all areas of provincial responsibility. That is why the Bloc's main objective never changed: to take the surpluses in Ottawa and give them to the provinces.
The problem is that the Liberal Party never acknowledged that there was too much money in Ottawa and not enough in the provinces. At least, the Conservative Party appears to be willing to recognize that fact. We are giving it a chance. The Conservative Party has set a 2007 deadline for showing what it will do. In the interest of Quebeckers, the Bloc is prepared to wait until 2007. But the problem better be resolved, though.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, my view is that the Bloc Québécois made a really bad deal. I honestly believe, and I say this with all due respect, there was more on the table that it could have used its bargaining power to achieve. This is a missed opportunity not just for the Bloc but for all of us, because in this minority Parliament the three opposition parties have all the power. We have the bargaining leverage, but it was given away. All negotiations stopped the very moment the leader of the Bloc Québécois walked out of this room and, in front of the microphone and the cameras, said, “I support that budget”. Negotiations ended. Kyoto, good-bye.
We could have forced the Tories to accept Kyoto had the Bloc only held its ground and stayed tough. It did not for some reason. It is beyond me. I cannot see the benefit. At least when the NDP traded our support to prop up the Liberal Party, we held our noses and supported the Liberal Party but we traded it for $4.8 billion worth of spending.
Some people argue that the Liberals did not follow through with their promise, but in fact the Tories are fulfilling the promise the Liberals made by putting that money in trust to fulfill Bill C-48. We got something for our vote. The Bloc got nothing for its vote. It is like the Jack and the Beanstalk story, where we trade the family cow for three beans, none of which sprout.
 I have a great deal of respect for my friend and colleague from the Bloc. Will he tell me, though, what did the Bloc get for this to sell out so early and to sell out on all of his opposition colleagues?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I have been attempting for a while to explain to my colleagues that the real problem with the entire federation is the large amount of money in Ottawa and the small amount in the provinces.
One day, they will understand that the fight led by the Bloc Québécois for Quebeckers is, at the same time, a fight for all Canadians, who see, when they use their roads, drink water from the tap, have household garbage problems and health and education issues, that the root of these problems is that there is too much money in Ottawa and not enough in the provinces.
That is what we are trying to do and, for the first time, we have a government that seems to be interested in resolving this imbalance. Thus, we are giving it a chance.
As for the rest, I would say to my NDP colleague, that this budget has done more for workers than the NDP has been able to do. Although it supported the Liberal budget , the NDP obtained nothing for workers. However, we have obtained a commitment from the government to analyze and solve the issue of older workers. I am speaking of all those individuals who, because of globalization and emerging markets, are losing their jobs after 15, 20 or 25 years of service and cannot find other work because they are over 50 and are having trouble. It will be a Bloc Québécois victory when an announcement is made in this regard. I hope he will applaud at that time.
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, the government's bill to implement the budget.
I had been cautiously optimistic that both this bill and the budget before it might have contained some good news for my community of Hamilton Mountain and, indeed, for all working families across Canada. After all, with this government's fiscal capacity, this budget was a huge opportunity to invest. From its own books, we know that the Conservative government has an $8 billion surplus this year and $83 billion in surplus money over the next five years. 
There has never been a better opportunity to invest in child care, education, training, and the environment, yet the government chose instead to squander over $7 billion of that $8 billion on tax cuts and subsidies to oil and gas companies. It is no wonder that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
 My colleague from Winnipeg North, who is also our party's finance critic, released information yesterday which clearly indicates that while the rich are getting richer, most Canadian families have seen their real incomes shrink since 1989. The fact is that the average income for the majority of Canadians, before taxes and transfers, is lower today than it was in 1980. Most Canadian families are poorer, and the recent federal budget will not be helpful in fighting this family income crisis. 
The Conference Board of Canada reports that while the average CEO experienced record growth in total compensation, at about 20% a year, most Canadians are working longer and harder for less pay and a smaller piece of the pie. It is simplistic, naive and even manipulative of the federal government to tell people that tax cuts will fix the problem.
What Canadians want and deserve is an investment in the things that matter most. Unfortunately, in that regard this budget is a missed opportunity. 
The only real investment is a re-announcement by the government of the money that the NDP budget delivered for working families in the last Parliament. We secured $1.6 billion for housing. The Conservatives re-announced that spending by allocating $800 million to affordable housing, $300 million to northern housing and $300 million to off reserve aboriginal housing. Even at that, they are still $200 million short of investing the full amount of the $1.6 billion that the NDP budget delivered.
Similarly, the NDP secured $900 million for public transit and energy retrofit programs and another $400 million under Bill C-66. That totalled $1.3 billion, the exact amount the Conservatives re-announced in their budget.
In yet another re-announcement of NDP money, the government reduced the $1.5 billion commitment to post-secondary education from the NDP budget by 33% to just $1 billion. Even worse, instead of letting that money go to tuition fee reductions, to which it was originally assigned, the Conservatives have redirected the money solely to bricks and mortar instead. Investments in infrastructure will do nothing to protect Canadian students from skyrocketing debts and surely will not ease the barrier to education that rising costs represent.
When it comes to foreign aid, the government has also failed both Canadians and the international community. The Conservatives' budget simply re-announced investments made in the NDP budget. Even at that, it reduced our country's contribution from the $500 million the NDP had secured last year to a mere $332 million. We are falling further and further behind in honouring the millennium development goal and meeting our commitment of committing 0.7% of GDP to foreign aid.
 Let us be clear about this. Meeting these commitments is not a matter of altruism. It is the most practical response Canada can offer to reduce global economic inequality, the single most important contributor to international instability and insecurity. It is time that Canada stepped up to the plate and lived up to the commitments we made when we supported the more than 50 United Nations resolutions at the General Assembly, as well as other votes, all of which supported the 0.7% target.
In my riding of Hamilton Mountain, more and more people are joining the campaign to make poverty history. I wear a white bracelet as a symbol of solidarity with all others who are committed to helping the world's poorest and most needy people.
While I am speaking about our international obligations, let me take just a moment to speak about the crisis in Darfur, which the government fails to address altogether in its recent budget. New Democrats are on the record as urging the government to use Canada's influence to insist that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council respect and support the right to protect.
 Members of the Security Council, including China, Russia, France and the United States, must put an end to their self-serving delays and their lip service and act now to apply international pressure on the Khartoum regime to end the violence in Darfur by respecting the arms embargo mandated under Security Council resolution 1591. Canada must encourage the UN to consider the deployment of a UN-led peacekeeping force to join the AU in trying to stabilize and improve conditions for the people of Darfur.
 Beyond the UN, there are measures the government can take that will have an immediate impact. The first step must be to increase the funding to the world food program for emergency aid. I am sorry to say that funding for this program was slashed by the Liberal government from $20 million in 2005 to just $5 million in 2006. This can be corrected.
Second, Canada must strive to ensure that development is not diverted to the Sudanese government, but rather that it reaches the people in need. This country's record on foreign aid had been one of steady and shameful decline. That is why the NDP ensured the inclusion of half a billion dollars for foreign aid in Bill C-48, our budget amendment of last year, to help those suffering in countries such as Sudan. Those funds are now available and should be used.
Third, Canada must increase its direct aid to the African Union.
Finally, the government can and must take immediate steps to support target sanctions against government leaders. 
There certainly is no shortage of international need for Canadian leadership. Unfortunately, such leadership thus far has been sadly lacking. In fact, the government has not demonstrated any better leadership in dealing with domestic issues. 
As I said earlier, this budget is one of missed opportunities. Let me give members just a few more examples. 
Although I have addressed issues of poverty in a global context, allow me to take just a moment to reflect on the increasing poverty at home. In my hometown of Hamilton, one in five people live below the poverty line. Twenty-five per cent of those are children, but we all know that children are not poor. It is their parents who are poor. Hamilton families need help now. 
We need to invest in our manufacturing sector to ensure that we will continue to have decent paying jobs in our community, yet Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill, is silent on this issue. It offers neither a steel industry strategy nor an auto sector strategy. 
Nor does Bill C-13 do anything to provide funding for decent paying public sector jobs for professions such as nurses or nurse practitioners, who are so crucial to improving our health care system. Similarly, the doctor shortage remains unaddressed. In fact, as I will return to later, the entire budget is largely silent on one of the top of mind issues for most Canadians, and that is health care.
Continuing on the jobs front for the moment, decent paying jobs also are not being supported by adequate training and retraining opportunities in this bill. Without such support, it is impossible to build and maintain the skilled workforce that is essential to supporting the 21st century economy. 
Of course, there is the double-barrelled impact of not supporting our municipalities with money for infrastructure renewal and housing. Not only does this curtail the number of building trade jobs in our communities, but it also adversely impacts the ability of cities like Hamilton to provide residents with the services they deserve. 
In short, there is nothing in this bill to offer hope to working families. It is simply a missed opportunity.
What about those whose careers are behind them? This budget offers absolutely nothing to our seniors. They have worked hard all their lives, they have played by the rules, and yet they are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.
 Despite a compelling report entitled “Aging and Poverty in Canada”, by the government's own National Advisory Council on Aging, the Conservatives have done nothing to address any of its key recommendations. Instead of offering income tax credits that will do nothing to improve the lives of most Canadian seniors, the government should lift seniors out of poverty by increasing the guaranteed income supplement to at least the low income cut-offs recognized by Statistics Canada.
Instead of proposing to pump $3 billion of taxpayers' money into the CPP for questionable purposes, the government should be using that money to raise the public pension benefits of all seniors. CPP has always been a “pay as you go” plan that does not rely on public money and, by the government's own estimates, CPP is going to be solvent for more than 75 years. It hardly needs a cash infusion. It is seniors who desperately need additional cash, not in the pension fund, but in their pockets.
With so many private pension funds currently in a state of underfunding, it would have been helpful if the government's only statement on this critical issue had not been to address debt servicing, but rather had focused on benefit security for workers and retirees made vulnerable by the solvency issues surrounding their pension plans.
I introduced a bill in the House on Tuesday entitled the workers first bill, which would put workers at the head of the list of creditors in cases of commercial bankruptcies. If the government really wants to do the right thing for seniors, I would encourage the industry minister to work with me so that together we could ensure quick passage of my bill for the protection of workers' wages and benefits.
There is one more pension issue that needs to be addressed immediately, but it is one that only got a promise of review and more study in the government's budget. That is the issue of survivor pensions. 
At first blush, the budget documents that the minister tabled on May 2 seem to offer a faint promise of hope for parents and grandparents of children with physical, psychological and developmental disabilities. In fact, on page 105 the budget states: 
 An important consideration for parents and grandparents of a child with severe disabilities is how best to ensure the financial security of their child, when they are no longer able to provide support. The Minister of Finance will appoint a small group of experts to examine ways to help parents save for the long term security of a child with severe disabilities and provide their recommendations to the Minister within six months. 
 While the minister indicates a timetable for receiving initial input, he offers absolutely no timetable for action. In the midst of a minority government, that is a huge concern. Families are tired of waiting. They want answers now.
Moreover, I hope the small group of experts is not limited to actuaries only. This issue goes well beyond exploring options for private pensions and trusts and must include a full examination of all public supports, a new way of dealing with other moneys or assets left to survivors and a prohibition on clawbacks.
I look forward to engaging the Minister of Finance in a dialogue on this issue because action is long overdue. Action of course is also long overdue on a number of other issues but again, instead of dealing with these issues head on, Bill C-13 and the budget represent a missed opportunity. 
Let me turn first to health care. If health care is one of the government's top five priorities, why is it barely mentioned in the budget? If it is so important, where is the plan? Where are the imperatives? How is the federal government going to work with the provinces? Where is that information? It certainly is not in the budget implementation bill.
As I have said in the House before, people in my riding of Hamilton Mountain remember only too well the last time a Conservative government turned its mind to health care. The last Conservative government in Ontario, of which the current Minister of Finance was then a member, threatened to close the Henderson Hospital, jeopardized access to home care and did nothing to address the unprecedented shortages of family doctors in the community. In fact, it laid the foundation upon which Premier McGuinty is now building his P3 hospitals and justifying the privatization of health care.
I had hoped that the Minister of Finance might have learned from his mistakes in Ontario and not repeated them here. However, his budget did nothing to expand public home care, an issue which not only impacts the most vulnerable families in the community but is directly linked to opening up beds in the acute care system. 
The budget did nothing to reduce wait times for surgeries, which could have been done by investing in training and skills upgrading for health providers, particularly nurses and nurse practitioners. 
The budget did nothing to act on the recommendation of the provincial premiers by enacting a national drug plan, which could have saved Canadians $2 billion a year.
In short, this budget should have been an opportunity to get serious about implementing the recommendations of the Romanow report so that governments like the McGuinty Liberals in Ontario would have to stop using the federal government as a scapegoat for proceeding with their ideologically based push toward the privatization of health care. However, instead of seizing the opportunity, this budget is just another missed opportunity.
The same is true of the environment. The Conservative budget and the budget implementation bill that is before the House today do absolutely nothing to address the profound environmental challenges that confront Canadians today. The silence is absolutely deafening.
When it comes to climate change, we have essentially lost yet another year on this most critical issue. It is showing up on the pages of Macleans, on the front page of The New York Times and across our communities, but it is not showing up in the budget. Canadians want this issue addressed. They recognize that the environment and wellness are inextricably linked. They know that environmental issues have a positive impact on our economy, but as of May 2 they also know that the Conservatives do not care.
Over many decades, and sometimes not deservedly, Canada has earned itself a reputation as a country that engages the international community in a positive way, whether it was through former prime minister Pearson's work in the UN or eventually through such treaties as Kyoto. 
The Liberal Party of Canada as early as 1993 made commitments, Liberal promises if you will, to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but once in power the Liberals went about doing absolutely the opposite. In fact, emissions rose by over 25%, a record worse than that of the Bush administration in the United States.
Successive Liberal governments have not made the investments to improve the productivity and efficiency of the Canadian economy and to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that it promised to do. There was a deathbed conversion as the Liberals were starting to sink in the polls and only then did a plan finally come forward.
As an environmentalist, I can remember day after day the then minister of the environment saying that the Liberals had a plan, that it was coming, to just hang on and have a little patience. It literally took years. The Kyoto accord was signed in 1997 and the government said nothing until 2005. What did Canada end up with: a discussion paper about climate change. There were no targets, no timelines and no strategy whatsoever.
Now there is a Conservative government in power, a government that has only recently come to realize what most of the world has known for years, that climate change caused by humans is in fact happening and is in fact a threat to both our society and our economy. Yet the budget is devoid of a strategy for dealing with climate change. It is a budget that is being declared an absolute disaster by environmental groups across the country. 
Instead of offering solutions and a concrete plan, it cut $1 billion from home retrofit programs that benefited both the environment and low income families across our country. When it comes to the environment, there is no more significant tool than the budget to make real progress. The message the government sent through its first budget is that the environment simply does not matter. The budget has failed Canadians both at home and internationally when it comes to the environment and it is yet another missed opportunity.
By this time in my participation in this debate, I have already outlined at least eight opportunities for meaningful action that were missed in both the budget and the budget implementation bill. Since the government was intent on cutting taxes rather than making meaningful investments that would help working families, perhaps that should not surprise me. There were two other missed opportunities that I would now like to identify which fall squarely into the tax cutting agenda and yet they too are nowhere to be found.
The first issue I would like to raise is the elimination of the goods and services tax on literacy materials. Yesterday I had the good fortune of seconding the introduction of Bill C-276, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, literacy materials. The bill was brought forward by my good friend the NDP finance critic and member for Winnipeg North, who shares my belief that literacy is a necessity and must therefore not be subject to taxes.
 For many Canadians the added cost of the GST can be a real impediment and there are far too many barriers to literacy already. Removing the GST on books and audiovisual materials for literacy training in fact complements existing tax relief programs given to organizations that conduct literacy work. 
In my view, the GST should never have been imposed on these materials at the outset, but when the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney brought in the GST, they failed to establish an exemption for literacy materials. Despite the fact that the Liberals had 12 years to redress that issue, they failed to seize the opportunity and left the GST in place throughout their term in government. 
In this minority Parliament we have the opportunity to do the right thing. Let us act together to remove the GST from all literacy materials. The measure would pay for itself. In our knowledge based economy the bar is being constantly raised higher on the base of skills needed to access decent jobs, to function in daily tasks and to participate in social and political life, and yet despite our technical sophistication, nearly 50% of Canadians still have difficulty working with words and numbers. It is in everyone's interest to raise Canadian literacy rates. As I said earlier, let us act now. It is the right thing to do.
Similarly, if the government is intent on governing through tax cuts, then I have another proposal that would also be the right thing to do. I had the privilege yesterday of seconding the introduction of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act on feminine hygiene products. The bill was brought forward by my good friend the NDP finance critic and member for Winnipeg North, who shares my belief that taxes on feminine hygiene products are discriminatory. 
Charging GST on feminine hygiene products clearly affects women only. It unfairly disadvantages women financially solely because of their reproductive role. Our bill would benefit all Canadian women at some point in their lives and would be of particular value to women with lower incomes. If a proper gender based analysis had been done when the GST was introduced, this discriminatory aspect of the tax would never have been implemented.
 I urge all members of the House to support this initiative. I am confident that members of the Conservative government will do so because of their announcement of support last October when they pledged to deal with the tampon tax. Failing to--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lethbridge.
Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I will try to get my comments into the time allotted to me.
I compliment the member on her obviously well researched, albeit somewhat off track, presentation. She did refer to the government being silent on the environment and I have to take exception to that and I will point out a couple of reasons why.
In our budget we have outlined a $1.7 billion investment in new, cleaner transportation to get Canadians out of their cars and into public transit. That is an important initiative for Canadians to help end the pollution that we see in our cities.
Really important to me is that we will be moving to a 5% average renewable content in Canadian motor fuels. I am excited about this for a couple of reasons, for the benefit to the environment, which is important, but also for the benefit to our primary producers, our farmers. It will give farmers an opportunity to have one more market for their products to help them get through the terrible crisis they are going through right now and help the environment at the same time.
The government has also stated that it will review the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, which will be the first serious review of it since 1987, and will also look at the Great Lakes water issue. 
The government is fully engaged on the environment. The environment minister has started us down the right path. 
The hon. member stated that our budget was silent on the environment. I ask her to comment on the points I made.
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I am really delighted at the intervention, because I ran out of time and now I have a whole whack more.
I understand that the Minister of the Environment this weekend will be in Bonn, Germany to chair a conference on climate change. I find it absolutely incredible that the government could send her there, given that the Conservatives have not bought into the Kyoto accord, that the budget offers no plan and that the single biggest tool for creating action on the environment, the budget, is largely silent.
While the hon. member raised a couple of points he would like me to consider, I would like the government to consider this: the EnerGuide program was cut. As of midnight, the level A audits are no longer allowed to be conducted. Not only does that hurt our environment, it hurts the lowest income families in our communities.
In my community of Hamilton, Green Venture has been conducting these audits on behalf of consumers and on behalf of low income families. It will have to potentially lay off up to four staff. This is completely counterproductive to the member's stated goal of wanting to improve the environment.
If the Conservatives are serious about wanting to address environmental issues, they should look at what they can do about the Kyoto plan, what they can do about energy retrofit programs and what they can do to encourage green industries. On none of those issues did their budget make a single bit of difference.
Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her comments with respect to the budget, a budget that attacks the most vulnerable in our country.
I know she is a new member so I should cut her some slack, but she really has to do her research if she wants to appear credible when she talks about the environment. She said there were no targets, but Canada had set targets. Even her own member talked about the $1.1 billion that we invested. She just passionately defended one of our programs.
She should have listened to the speeches yesterday, if she were really interested in the environment and Kyoto. It was made quite clear that the Liberal government planned to implement 22 made in Canada plans and programs. These programs would have cut millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases. She cannot say that we were against biodiesel, considering the help we were giving for ethanol development, deepwater cooling, solar heating, wind energy, ground source heat pumps, photovoltaic, geothermal, landfill gas, biomass and low head hydro. We had one of the best auto agreements in the world to cut emissions. We were also in the process of developing legislation for large emitters. 
A number of Conservatives have said they believe that climate change is somewhat of a natural phenomena. For the NDP to be unaware of these 22 programs and for them not to support environmental initiatives in what environmental groups said was the greenest budget in history is not a very productive way to support the environment.
 I agree things could be improved. We could cut more greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions have gone up because our economy has been so successful, the greatest in the G-8. However, we have cut millions of tonnes. The NDP should support these programs. It should support these cuts and ask for even more. 
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think New Democrats need to be lectured by a Liberal on environmental action. When the member's government was turfed out of office, emissions had gone up 25%, even more than those emissions under the Bush administration in the United States.
While I appreciate the member's more gentle comments at the beginning, when he congratulated me on my comments about vulnerable people in our communities, let me also use this opportunity to remind members that I have in fact done my research. We have talked to seniors in our communities. They are telling us that they are hurting more each day because their pensions, their fixed incomes, are not keeping up with things like increased property taxes, which would have been helped with some significant investment into municipal infrastructure. They are also being hurt by rising energy prices. With the cut of the EnerGuide program, these seniors have no hope of reducing those costs. We have to remember that public pensions have not been improved in any significant way.
As a House, we owe it to those individuals who built our country, who built our health care system, to ensure that they can retire with the dignity and respect they deserve.
Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters and the citizens of Wellington—Halton Hills for giving me the privilege of representing them on the floor of the House of Commons for the second time. I am truly honoured by this trust and the confidence that the people have shown in me and I am determined to act in a manner that is consistent and worthy of that trust.
I would also like to thank all the volunteers who assisted me in the most recent campaign. Many Canadians may not realize that there are literally tens of thousands of volunteers who help out. In any particular riding, there are hundreds of volunteers who assist in election campaigns. This is time that they take off work and it is time they take away from their families to participate in our democratic and civic processes. It is a commitment they make because they believe in the importance of our parliamentary institutions and in our democracy. I want to thank them especially for taking that time helping me and our government in that regard.
Anybody who has spent time in politics also realizes the enormous burden that our jobs and our work places on our families. I would also like to thank my wife Carrie for all the commitment she has shown over the last number of years in helping me with my work.
Budget 2006 delivers on our commitments. It is a balanced budget that focuses priorities and that delivers on many of the commitments we made in the most recent election campaign, including debt reduction.
In the recent election campaign, we made a number of commitments to the Canadian people. We broke them down into our key five priorities. I am happy to say that our budget delivers on many of those commitments.
Budget 2006 gives tangible expression to the things that we told Canadians we would do. During the election we said that we would commit to certain things. We have come to this House and we have done those things. There is no greater way to restore the trust and faith of Canadians in government than to do what we said we would do during election campaigns.
One of the government's top priorities is to enhance accountability to Canadians and transparency in government operations. The federal accountability action plan published on April 11 introduces a broad range of reforms, including the establishment of a position of parliamentary budget officer and a commitment to provide quarterly updates on fiscal forecasts for the current fiscal year.
The budget offers sweeping tax relief for individual taxpayers, totalling nearly $20 million over two years. That is as much relief as was provided in the last four budgets put together. Budget 2006 provides improved assistance to Canadians and their families, to the tune of $5.2 billion over two years. Budget 2006 invests $1.4 billion over two years in protecting Canadian families and communities, ensuring border security and enhancing public health emergency preparedness.
Over the same period, the budget will provide $73 million for making our financial system safer. The government is also committed to strengthening Canada's role on the international scene by investing $1.1 billion over two years in the Canadian Forces and striving to ensure the efficiency of international aid.
In this budget, the government pledges to take immediate measures to restore fiscal balance in Canada and respond to concerns in that regard, by implementing the ten year plan to strengthen health care and—in conjunction with provincial and territorial governments—developing and introducing a wait time guarantee for necessary medical treatment, among other things.
The budget is also good news for Wellington—Halton Hills. In our area, many farmers over the last year have faced particularly devastating economic circumstances, especially farmers outside the supply managed system. They have indicated to us over the last number of years that they do need help.
Our government has responded. In the budget we fulfilled our election commitment to put an additional $500 million annually into farm income support. Budget 2006 not only delivers on that commitment, but it goes beyond that. Our government has deep roots in rural Canada and we understand the plight that farmers today face. The budget responds to those dire needs of many farmer by putting an additional $1 billion in budget 2006 into farm income support.
The total additional financial support that the Government of Canada has committed to Canadian farmers is $1.5 billion for this current fiscal year. 
I am very glad I can go back to the citizens and the farmers of Wellington—Halton Hills and tell them that our government is committed to Canadian agriculture and that we will deliver on those commitments.
Like all provinces, Ontario faces infrastructure challenges. Our government made commitments during the election to help provinces and municipalities with infrastructure. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has delivered on those commitments. Budget 2006 puts an additional $6.6 billion into infrastructure support: $2.4 billion for the highways and border infrastructure fund; $2 billion for the Canada strategic infrastructure fund; and $2.2 billion for the municipal rural infrastructure fund, also known as COMRIF, in Ontario.
In addition, we met our commitment during the election to continue with the previous government's gas tax commitments by committing an additional $4.4 billion over the next four years to deliver that gas tax on a per capita basis to Canada's municipalities. In budget 2006 municipalities in the province of Ontario will receive $233.9 million as part of that commitment to fulfill the gas tax.
Another area that our government fulfilled its commitment on is the environment. During the election campaign, we committed to putting in place a 15.5% federal tax credit for public transit fees. We have delivered on that commitment.
We have also delivered our commitment to support the Canadian arts and Canadian culture by committing an additional $50 million over the next two years to ensure that arts and art institutions are supported. This money will go toward the Canada Council for the Arts to ensure that it can deliver and protect Canadian culture throughout our great country.
Finally, our government has been prudent in its financial planning and we have delivered $3 billion in debt reduction for the upcoming fiscal year. Our belief is that the best way to protect social programs is to run a good fiscal program and to ensure that the fiscal and monetary situation of the country is run in such a way that the Government of Canada has adequate resources in future years to deliver the programs that Canadians so value.
In conclusion, before I take questions from members of the opposition, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport, I am very proud on some of the commitments that our government has delivered in the budget. 
The budget offers immediate assistance to the citizens living in my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills and to all Canadians. 
It offers a clean plan for the future to effectively address many of the serious challenges our country faces and represents a tremendous step forward in the right direction for our great country.
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the fiscal imbalance for my colleague opposite.
The Council of the Federation published a report recommending that equalization payments be increased by $5 billion per year and that another $5 billion be transferred to the provinces. This means that the provinces will get an additional $10 billion every year.
Given the recent announcements about reducing sales and income taxes, and additional investments in defence and prisons, as my colleague across the way pointed out, there is no more money. There is not even a contingency fund.
This leads me to wonder where the new money will come from to correct the fiscal imbalance. Given that there is no more money, there are no sources. And what the provinces want, is money.
[Interjection]
Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Our government tabled, as part of the budget, a paper entitled “Restoring Fiscal Balance in Canada”. In it, one of the problems that we identified in years past under the previous government had to do with transparency in budget planning. The budget paper outlines one of the problems that we have had in recent years. The government consistently underestimated the sizes of the surpluses. At year end, March 31 each year, the provinces were always surprised at the amount of the federal surplus because the government failed to be sufficiently transparent in this regard.
For example, just before the 2004 election, Canadians were told that the budget surplus would be $1.9 billion. It turned out to be $9.1 billion, a difference of almost 400% to 500%. As a result, provinces felt that the government was not being transparent with them with regard to fiscal transfers of the federation. 
Our government acknowledges the problems of the previous government with respect to transparency and budget planning. That is why we have set out to establish an independent budgetary office that would be part of the federal accountability act, so that there would be greater transparency and greater accuracy in budget planning.
We have committed to dealing with the question of fiscal balance. We have acknowledged that this is an issue across the country. Obviously, the previous government had mixed messages on it. On the one hand, it indicated that it was not an issue, but on the other hand, it signed the Atlantic accord and the May memorandum with the province of Ontario to address its concerns about fiscal and federal transfers.
Our government has said that we received the Council of the Federation report. We welcome its feedback in this regard. We have received the budget paper. We are looking forward to the expert panel on territorial and equalization financing, also called the O'Brien report, that the previous government commissioned. Over the course of the coming months in the summer, the government will consult widely with the provinces on this issue and in the fullness of time, the Prime Minister will be putting forward proposals in this regard.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question about corporate welfare, out of deference to the former leader of the NDP, Ed Broadbent, who coined that term.
 I do not know if my colleague is aware, but Canada is the third largest producer and exporter of asbestos in the world. Even though most of the world is banning asbestos, we continue to subsidize and underwrite the costs of the asbestos industry in direct subsidies and in travelling the world challenging anyone who wants to ban asbestos by sending teams of Department of Justice lawyers to Rotterdam and The Hague. Anywhere they are trying to limit and contain the use of asbestos, we try to block them.
We even sent our lawyers to the WTO to block France from banning asbestos saying that we would lose the trade. Does he agree with me that asbestos, in all of its forms, should be banned first of all, but at the very least, we should stop underwriting and subsidizing this deadly substance, tobacco's evil twin, and stop these corporate serial killers from polluting the planet with asbestos?
[Interjection]
Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources have been working closely together on this file in collaboration with our foreign counterparts to ensure that Canada's interests are protected in this regard. In the fullness of time, I am sure that the government will come to a determination on this issue.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here to speak about this government's new budget. I am very proud of our colleague, the Minister of Finance, and his hard work over the past few months. He has tabled a budget that reflects all the priorities of Canadians.
I am referring to, among other things, how this budget will reduce the rate of taxation for all Canadians. This budget will put in place a good number of the true priorities of Canadians. It is the first time in several years that a budget has been able to accomplish this. I am very pleased to speak about this budget, today.
Speaking with the people from my riding, the feedback I am hearing is overwhelmingly supportive. It seems that Edmontonians know that the budget is good for their city, good for the province, and obviously good for Canadians. They support a focussed agenda that will actually get results for a change. 
As someone who has stood before the House in the past to speak on budgets, especially being in the opposition, one of the key assessments that I have always had to make is to look at how the government's plans would actually affect the people who sent me here to represent them.
In the past, I will say as many have felt, it has been frustrating because despite a punishing tax regime that squeezed the average family, individuals and small businesses in my riding, people regularly had the sense that we were not receiving value for money. 
The previous government would announce billions in funding, but for average people, for real people in neighbours in my riding, the only results they ever saw was a creeping tax burden, a rising cost of living, the occasional press release announcing a new program, but no real help or support that ever seemed to make a difference. This budget is different.
I am proud to say that our plan does more in one budget to help the diverse needs of people in my riding than the previous government was able to deliver in the last 13 years. 
Individuals in Edmonton—Strathcona are hard-working people. There are students at the University of Alberta, small business owners, entrepreneurs on Whyte Avenue, and moms, dads and grandparents who put a premium on family. 
I am happy to say that the budget speaks directly to their needs and it does so in a way that leaves the maximum amount of flexibility for individuals to pursue their own goals in their own way.
It is in the spirit of respect and acknowledgement of the fact that individuals not bureaucrats know best that our budget seeks to make life easier for all Canadians. The government does not and cannot better understand the needs of a third year chemistry student trying to balance work and study to afford tuition at the University of Alberta. 
None of us here can pretend to know what is best for the restaurant owner trying to scrape the money together to expand on Whyte Avenue and we cannot certainly assume to better be prepared to tell the parents of young children in my riding how to raise their family.
In the past, the previous government sought to impose a one size fits all for its own solutions for these very real problems. Our vision is very different. 
We do not pretend that because people have different needs that government does not have a role to play in making life better, but what we do say is that people know best for themselves and that government's proper role is a supportive one. 
I am proud that the budget recognizes this fact and takes steps to position the federal government to help people achieve their goals and realize their dreams.
One of those groups is students. For every single one of more than 35,000 students attending post-secondary studies at the University of Alberta in my riding, the budget delivers significant and meaningful assistance in the most direct way possible by getting out of the way and leaving students with more money in their pockets for their own priorities. 
Our new government will help reduce the burden on students in Edmonton—Strathcona by providing an immediate tax credit to help all students with the cost of their textbooks.
For a full time student at the U of A this will mean a textbook tax credit of about $520 per year. This is money that will be left in the pockets of students and go toward any number of needs from groceries to school supplies, a ticket home to visit friends and family, or to start paying down some of their debt. 
Students need to be supported for their hard work in pursuit of academic excellence. That is why we took a bold move, that should have been done a long time ago, to exempt bursaries and scholarships from tax, so that when students are awarded some of the much needed financial assistance, they will not see that recognition clawed back to the federal coffers in Ottawa.
As I mentioned, I used to be a small business owner in my riding. I know firsthand the challenges faced by entrepreneurs and hard-working independent business owners who make our community so vibrant. Incredibly, I have long made the case to fix the problem. Government needs to do a lot less, not more. 
We need to leave individual business owners more of their hard-earned money to invest in how they see fit. This will mean more jobs and a more robust economy as small business owners find they have more money to expand, to take on more staff, and also make key investments. The budget delivers on that.
Entrepreneurs in my riding will have an additional $100,000 of qualifying income for the small business tax limit. Not only does this mean more business income than ever before will be protected from punitive tax rates, but our government has moved to reduce the small business tax rate by 1% over the next two years.
In addition to helping small business owners, we knew that all Canadians, regardless of who they are or what they do, deserve meaningful tax relief. That is why the government is providing tax relief people can actually see, tax relief that will affect every single Canadian. We will be immediately reducing the GST by 1%. 
The benefits of this commitment will be felt by every single individual in my constituency. I know, coming from a service industry business, the more that can be freed up in taxes, especially in the service industry, the more disposable income people will have to actually spend on particular items for their families or themselves.
For students, it means that the necessary expenses needed to get them to class will be cheaper. For business owners, it means customers will have more money to spend on their products and services and, more importantly, for families in my riding, it means an extra $400 on average every year that can be spent or saved as families see fit.
More often than not, government cannot spend money better than Canadians. This is a recognition that Ottawa can do more with less and that Canadians can do more with their own money. Instead of treating Canadians like a series of special interest groups, the budget recognizes that Canadians are individuals with their own goals and desires.
I am thrilled that my constituents finally have a government that recognizes the need to support their choices by leaving them with more resources to carve out their own destiny. By providing broad based and meaningful tax relief, our fiscal plan will make a real difference for every single person in my riding.
One point that I did not mention during the course of my speech relates to students and the link to small business. I know that one of the unfortunate restrictions in the past was that international students, who are now making up such a significant part of our student base across the country, were not able to work while they were spending time here in Canada. Often we would have those international students bring about $4 billion worth of investment into Canada every year by attending classes, taking up housing, and spending money when they came here to pursue their studies. Unfortunately, they were not able to work.
As we know, in the budget there was the announcement that we have opened up that process to allow those international students to actually pursue employment here in Canada while they are attending school. 
As I mentioned, as a small business person in the service industry, I have noticed that there is a labour crunch right across this country. Many of the markets are finding it difficult to find people to work. Our budget will provide not only the chance for students to find work and raise some money to help pay for some of the costs that they incur, especially being away from home in an international location, but will also help fill the gap that we currently have in the employment market when it comes to the service industry by allowing some of those students to take up some meaningful employment. 
I know that will make a huge difference to many people in my riding, especially when it comes to filling that labour shortage that many people are currently facing.
The budget is an excellent new start for the government. The budget sets some key priorities in the short term to achieve meaningful results. It sets a plan in place for the future, a bold vision that I think Canadians were so desperately needing after 13 years of mismanagement, corruption, and lack of attention to their needs.
Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That this question be now put. 

Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, the wealthy and the big businesses of this country are very generous. They help a lot of people, but they did not ask for a budget that was built on the backs of students. I was amazed that the budget is such a slap in the face for students.
When the Liberals were in government, they created the biggest scholarship program in history with thousands of dollars for students. The last Liberal budget proposed $6,000 for every student for tuition. In fact, for poor students, the amount was doubled to $12,000. What do students get in this budget? They receive an $80 tax credit on books.
One of the Conservative members was asked during the budget debate what the government had done for single mothers and poor people. The member said that a single mother could go back to school with the $80 tax credit on books. I phoned my college bookstore and asked for the price of an average textbook. In fact, I asked for the price of three books. All three books were more than $80. I think the books cost $110, $120 and $130 each. I know that there are lots of books, so I wanted to be sure. I was told that the average book would cost $100.
The Conservatives are telling single parents that they can go back to school and the government will help them with three-quarters of the price of a textbook. This is embarrassing. I would not boast about this part of the budget because it is not a serious attempt to help students.
[Interjection]
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member in this House, but it is funny when he says that the government promised a lot, especially after what we saw in the deathbed conversion process during the campaign, when the Liberals were coming up with policies we had never heard from them in the last 13 years they were in power. They never made any meaningful changes to help students. 
The member talks about the bursaries or scholarships they implemented. It is all fine and dandy to say that was in fact done, but when students are taxed on that same income they are getting as bursaries or scholarships, it is almost doing reverse damage to them. That is why this government moved very quickly in the budget to remove that unfair tax on scholarships and bursaries. It should have been done a long time ago if the previous government really was committed to students, but it lacked the intention to do so.
Again, promises are all we heard from the Liberal government for over 13 years. I was in opposition for the last 9 of those 13 years, and there were some really great promises, let us face it. Did the Liberals actually follow through with any of them? I would say not.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this budget is what I think of as the lack in the opportunity to plug one of the most egregious tax loopholes out there. What I am talking about is what is called tax motivated expatriation, which is in fact the transferring of money offshore to tax havens, whereby companies can avoid paying their fair share of taxes in Canada.
I sense that the Conservatives are generally sympathetic and think this practice should be stopped. It was used most notably by the former prime minister when Canada Steamship Lines was set up in the only tax haven left. The Liberals tore up all the tax treaties except for the one haven where Canada Steamship Lines happened to reside.
If the Conservatives did not see fit to plug that tax loophole in this budget, would my colleague at least agree that companies that take advantage of these tax havens should not be able to get contracts from the federal government while they are taking advantage of this tax fugitive situation?
[Interjection]
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague, especially in light of what we saw from the previous prime minister in taking advantage of that particular tax loophole. Obviously it was not the best way that Canadians like to see companies do business. I am willing to explore the idea of ensuring that contracts are done openly and transparently and given to the best people who are applying for those contracts with the federal government. 
I think the member's question speaks to a bigger issue that we have to address, and I think this government has already taken a step to address it. That issue is the overall tax burdens that Canadians and business have been facing in this country for years and years. The only reason many of these companies look at ways to shelter their incomes and to move them offshore is that clearly we have had a regime in this country that has had very strict and very high levels of tax on businesses. That has affected competition, their ability to invest and their ability to actually look at ways to hide that income in other places.
I think we have moved in the right direction. We have to lower those tax levels. We have done so in this budget. We hope to continue down that track to keep our economy competitive and to stop that process of people looking at putting their money overseas.
Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for the great riding of Thunder Bay--Rainy River.
After 13 years of Liberal government, Canada's economic and fiscal situation is among the best in the world. I hope the government would agree that it is extremely fortunate to inherit the strong economic house that was built and fostered by the governments that preceded it. 
The budget we are debating today is in large part a budget of small advancements that is rigidly tied, it appears to me, to an ideology that really is the architecture of small government. It is in large part a short-sighted budget, in my mind. It is a budget that values political expediency, as the member from Markham pointed out, instead of long term stability or progressive investments in the future of Canada.
Liberals believe the budget should have included, for example, a national child care system that offers quality and affordable child care to all Canadians. As well, it is a shame that the Kelowna accord, which finally turned a page and enabled Canada to move forward on improving the social and political situation of Canada's aboriginal people, was entirely neglected.
While the Prime Minister may want to focus his attention on five priorities, this country is far bigger than that. There are many challenges facing this country, as well as many opportunities. This is not the time to put on blinders and ignore the difficult issues that Canadians expect us to be working on. 
That said, the budget is not entirely without merit. There are some very positive aspects. The Conservative budget, for example, talks about tax relief, and the kind that applies to all Canadians equally, sales tax relief. It is a positive way to encourage our citizens to become more productive.
Don Johnson, a tireless crusader for the arts and social causes, has long been an advocate of tax abatement for those who give stock contributions to charities. Thanks to his hard work and tireless advocacy, a total exemption for charitable stock contributions was included in this budget. That is a good thing.
My riding is a thriving bastion for small business. Over 95% of all businesses in Canada are small businesses. They are responsible for not only the spirit and drive we find in York South--Weston, but also for nearly half the jobs created in Canada every year. I am glad, and I am sure all members in the House are glad, to see that the threshold for small business income eligible for the reduced federal tax rate will be increased to $400,000.
We are also glad to see that the government has listened to the many members on all sides of the House and has pledged to support our police forces. Funding those who shield our municipalities and protect our provinces and our people is a noble and necessary pursuit.
 At the federal level, the RCMP need to be equipped with the latest technology and capable of handling the most challenging of investigative tasks. This budget at least recognizes that there has long been a shortfall in the funding of the mounted police. An accomplished force with such a rich history and storied symbolism deserves the best we can offer.
However, I am compelled to talk about some of the shortcomings of the budget. I wish I could say more positive things about what is being offered the rest of Canada, but sadly there is not that much. This is a budget that fails the regions, fails our health care system, fails our first nations and fails the environment. I would like to expand on the reasoning behind this statement.
First of all, I would like to expand on how this budget fails our health care system. During the election, the Conservative Party made wait times reduction one of their five core priorities. During his budget speech on May 2, the hon. Minister of Finance said his government was “committed to implementing the 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care”.
 The Conservatives' federal budget provides no additional funding for wait time reduction, nor any explanation as to how their wait times guarantee will be implemented. What happened to the Conservative priority of fixing wait times? They promised to outdo the Liberals, yet their budget invests no more funding for wait times reduction beyond what the Liberal government already committed.
 How will the Conservatives pay for their wait times guarantee? Will they download costs to the provinces and territories without giving them more funding to cope? Despite their criticism of the Liberal government's 10 year plan to strength health care, this plan has now become the core pillar of their health care platform. Now that the groundwork has been laid by the previous Liberal government, the Conservatives seem ready to claim its successes as their own.
It was the Liberal government that worked with the provinces and territories to establish benchmarks for medically acceptable wait times, to set reduction targets for key medical procedures, to create the $5.5 billion wait times reduction fund, and to integrate foreign-trained medical professionals to supplement shortages within the Canadian medical field.
The Conservative government seems to have overlooked not only one of its own priorities but the number one priority for Canadians: a better, stronger health care system.
The budget also fails our children and working parents. The Conservative budget fails to provide a real child care choice for parents. Twenty dollars a week for child care is simply not enough. Low income parents will also be losing the young child supplement of the Canada child tax benefit. The Conservatives are cutting $1 billion from the child tax benefit, which was supposed to reach $10 billion next year.
The budget fails our first nations people. The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has implied that he has doubts whether the $5 billion for the Kelowna accord was actually budgeted for by the previous Liberal government. This commitment is so fundamental that it is vital to dispel any such doubts.
The previous Liberal finance minister has confirmed that as of November 24, 2005, the day of the first ministers meeting when the agreement was signed, the fiscal framework of the Government of Canada included a total of $5.096 billion to address obligations arising from the Kelowna accord.
In the Liberal government's 2005 economic and fiscal update on November 14, the importance of the then upcoming Kelowna meeting was specifically stated, together with an undertaking to provide the needed financing, and there was more than enough unused fiscal room in our framework to accommodate the expected sum. When the Kelowna meeting actually took place 10 days later, the money was booked.
The fiscal treatment of the Kelowna accord was quite similar to how we handled special federal funding of $755 million to help grains and oilseed producers in the farm sector. Although we are pleased that the Conservative government has proceeded with our $755 million commitment to help farmers, it is just as important that it also follow through on our parallel commitment to aboriginal peoples, delivering the funding that was most certainly set aside for this compelling purpose on November 24.
What looms ominously over the budget is the Prime Minister's commitment to cutting $1 billion worth of unidentified programs each year for the next two years. Does that means that the right hon. Prime Minister intends to cut these things: the northern strategy, which ensures that economic development opportunities are developed in partnership with northern Canadians; the Mackenzie gas project, which increases federal and regional capacity; and the oceans action plan, which improves oceans management and preserves the health of Canada's oceans?
This budget also fails the environment on the commitment to Kyoto. The government has eliminated climate change programs and is getting ready to pull out of the Kyoto accord. Its transit tax credit is costly and ineffective. It will cost almost $400 million over two years and will increase transit use by only 5%. This translates to a cost of $2,000 for each tonne of carbon dioxide saved, and that will be 10 to 100 times the cost per tonne under the Liberal project green plan.
The budget also fails Ontario. A year ago, the Liberal government and the Government of Ontario signed an agreement that would see Ontario receive $7 billion in federal funding. This money was to be used by Ontario's government to help convert coal-fired power plants to natural gas, expand public transit, augment funding for universities and community colleges, and bring the province up to the same level as the rest of the country in federal spending on immigration settlement and job training programs.
During the election, the Prime Minister promised to uphold this agreement and transfer every single dollar of the deal to Ontario. Yesterday we learned that the Prime Minister's Minister of Finance has written to his provincial counterpart and informed him that the money on its way to Ontario will be $3 billion short of what was promised. This is no way to retune the Ontario economic engine, which in fact transfers through equalization two-thirds of the total amount of money that goes to those fiscally disadvantaged provinces in Canada.
This budget fails Canada. This budget is all about short term gain in exchange for long term pain. The budget has failed all Canadians.
Daniel Petit: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for painting such a negative picture of our budget. I would like to draw his attention to this, though: by virtue of their attitude over the past 13 years, the Liberals came very close to ruining Canada because they did not recognize the fiscal imbalance. Today, the Conservative Party's budget does recognize that fiscal imbalance.
Since, by voting against the budget, the Liberals denied the existence of the fiscal imbalance, can my colleague explain why all Canadians acknowledge that it exists? By voting against the budget, the Liberals do not recognize the fiscal imbalance, when everyone knows that it exists. I would like to hear my colleague's answer about this fiscal imbalance that his party refuses to recognize.
[Interjection]
Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, let us use a case in point. I would like to expand a bit on the case that I use in terms of Ontario.
We do recognize that there is a fiscal imbalance. More than that, we realize that if we do not invest in the manufacturing economy of the province of Ontario, for example, at a time when natural resource based economies are booming, that is the economic engine that in terms of our federal history has produced the kinds of prosperity that we have all enjoyed. That budget does not do it.
I do not know what the member means in terms of challenging this side of the House. This is not the side of the House that he should be looking at. He should be looking at his side of the House because it is that side, through this budget, that is not going to generate the multipliers, transform the economy to the extent that we create jobs in high value added activity such that there is more of the economic pie that we can then equalize across this great nation. 
That has been the history. That is what the Liberal Party and Liberal governments recognized and that is what they did so well, that this budget is not going to do, and that is tragic.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is helpful to watch my colleagues point fingers at each other and blame one another for the recent state of affairs, or even the state of the nation, because they are both to blame to some degree.
It may be something of a cliche to say that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but I now have the empirical evidence here that in fact this is true. The average total income for all families might be the best measurement of how we are doing economically.
The average total income for all family units from 1989 to 2004, in quintiles, was: in the lowest quintile, the bottom 20%, the standard of living went down by 9%; in the second lowest quintile, $30,000 a year, it actually dropped by 4%; in the third quintile, the standard of living dropped by 3%. These figures are for 1989 to 2004, so there were some Tory years and some Liberal years. The only quintile that went up is the highest quintile, which went up 23%. These are not left-wing pinko figures; these are statistics. This is the truth. This is what really happened. Canadians are not better off.
 For all the equality measures that we talk about and the successive budgets that are designed to make Canadians' lives better for most of us, 60% of us at least, we are dropping and only the rich are getting richer.
I would ask my colleague, does he not agree that equality should be the goal here and elevating the standard of living of all Canadians should be the goal and that something has gone terribly wrong?
[Interjection]
Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, that is the best question of the day, and I do not mean that in a patronizing sense.
I would like to direct my colleague to the 10 year trend with respect to the income tax reductions that had been distributed through the surplus to those who fit into that very category he talked about. If he looks at that 10 year trend under the budgets that were brought forward by a Liberal government, he will see that while it has not been fast enough, there was definitely an improvement in those lower categories through the regime and architecture that the Liberals had supported. 
That is not the trend nor the pattern nor the philosophy of the current government through this budget. It is going to go in exactly the opposite way.
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, in my address in terms of the implementation of the budget, I will show what will happen in northwestern Ontario, particularly in Thunder Bay—Rainy River. There should be several good things, and rightly so, as the government inherited one of the best financial situations of any provincial or federal government in recent memory. 
Nonetheless, when we think about what is good, what is bad, what is missing or what the Conservative government has adopted in continuing previous government policies, the first thing that comes to mind is how offensive the raising of the income tax rate for the poor is. People all across the country are offended, hurt and indeed embarrassed by hurting the poorest classes.
The cancellation of the early learning and child care agreements in northwestern Ontario means the loss of 1,400 spaces that were desperately needed. Of course, Ontario and indeed all those provinces across the country that uploaded the child care support will now be facing the fact that they will have to download them again and raise property taxes in those municipalities. When that starts happening, people will really know the serious effect of this.
The slashing of the forestry agreement from $1.5 billion to $400 million is of concern to many northwestern Ontario companies that have been struggling over the past number of years, and in particular are paying the penalty of not having a chance to get that $1 billion of illegal duties paid back to them and only get 78% of that. For example, the Ontario industry has paid 12% of all the duty submitted and of that provincial portion northwestern Ontario companies have paid nearly 60% of that total. That is nearly $300 million out of the communities in and around my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River.
When asked about how good the softwood deal was, yes it has been rejected many, many times in the past number of years and indeed the reason the previous deal was never accepted is that it is not going to help us. For example, no money will likely be returned in less than nine months, but more important to the people of northwestern Ontario, the provincial and federal governments will not be permitted to change forestry policies in any manner that could be interpreted as assisting the forestry industries because of the terminology of the anti-circumvention measure. This means that for northwestern Ontario producers who are pushing for regional energy, as we call it, once that became implemented by the provincial government, an American company could simply overrule it and roll that back.
When we talk about the impact on tourism of the passport restrictions, there are no programs in the budget to assist border communities and no funding to educate Americans and Canadians about these changes. Indeed for communities such as Morson in my riding which depend heavily on tourism, because of the FedNor program we were recently able to expand cell tower and broadband services. This will greatly enhance tourism because tourists can use their cell phones and computers. But tourists will stop coming. That has already begun to happen and we have to be on full alert about this. Many people in the United States actually think that the passport requirement is a Canadian program. On top of all of this, significant progress had been made by American legislators, mayors and reeves of border communities, and the tourism industry, so we did not have to roll over on this one.
In terms of the Trans-Canada Highway, the previous agreement signed last year with the province of Ontario should allow us to continue with federal-provincial funding for a national highway program. We look forward to that.
In terms of agriculture, my riding has a considerable amount of agriculture as it spans a seven and a half hour drive over two time zones. The beef, dairy, and grains and oilseeds farmers are somewhat dismayed that they will get less this year than they did from the previous government. That is a concern for them, particularly when we know full well the impact on the grains and oilseeds right now during planting season.
I congratulate the government for continuing the FedNor program. I believe the Conservatives understand its value and I thank them very much for that. We hope that the program will also allow the people of the town of Fort Frances and the Rainy River district to benefit with the purchase of the privately owned bridge. With the FedNor contributions and the ministry of transport's assistance, we are looking forward to some kind of help for the town of Fort Frances.
From the health perspective, the regional cancer research centre has received support already from the municipality, the province and the private sector. All it is waiting for now is the federal contribution so hopefully that will come shortly. The minister is welcome to come to my riding and make that announcement at his convenience.
Environmentally there is a very high degree of awareness in Thunder Bay, very cost effective programs and a great deal of community buy-in. The loss of a program such as EcoSuperior was a dramatic hit. It was enlisting strong community based support for environmental programs and awareness.
When talking about the hopper car deal, the FRCC, the people of Thunder Bay, the port authority and I had been looking forward to an agreement. Now that the deal has been turned back to the railways, this will hurt all the communities along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, and particularly the port of Thunder Bay. That has been greeted with considerable dismay.
We are also concerned about the lack of identification of the continuance of regional programs for such organizations as the CBC. This would greatly take the pressure off that station which services an area larger than France and a couple of other European countries put together.
If we have a goal of becoming the most literate nation in the world, support for literacy programs is conspicuously absent in the budget, particularly support for aboriginal literacy. I am hoping that is perhaps a small print item that we will hear more about in the next little while.
Ridings such as mine have considerable distance and travel times. The Conservatives have previously campaigned on and made many overtures in the House about lowering gas prices. The fact that nothing has been mentioned about that has many of my constituents calling me. Even people who had supported that party in the last election have expressed considerable dismay and have referred to articles quoting the current Prime Minister and many members of that party about gasoline pricing.
The absence of mention of health care in the budget is something which many people have mentioned. If the government will be continuing the health care accord, then that is very significant. It would be an understanding that that was a significant achievement and that the current government understands how well the previous prime minister and former minister of health had done in bringing people together to come to an accord. It was historic and appreciated indeed by the whole nation.
I do not have time to dwell on many other topics, but there are some that I would like to mention. The government deserves credit for the apprenticeship programs for small business. If there are plans to build a prison for $500 million and $500 million worth of operating costs, please put one in my riding. We would be glad to take it.
When we talk about a budget we cannot just be negative and cynical. Every budget tries to put the government's best foot forward. I hope that I have identified some of the shortcomings, some of the good things, some of the things that are missing. I hope that members in the House today understand that when we make a point it is to try to make improvements. If there is a shortcoming, members should not get all defensive, negative and hostile. They should just know that someone is trying to make it better and I would ask hon. members to understand that.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned 1,400 child care spaces in his region of the province of Ontario. He claims that those spaces will no longer exist. In truth, they never did exist. The reality is that after 13 years of Liberal government promises, of which he was a part, not a solitary child care space was created and billions of dollars were spent. There were no results, zero, zip and zilch, in that order.
Today we are confronted with a new debate. Do we continue with the path of the last 13 years where the Liberal government had promised $1 billion a year to create day care spaces, which 19 out of 20 children would not have received a solitary space? Let us do the simple math of one child care space costing $40 a day and multiplying that times the number of business days in an entire year. If one plays the math out, there would be enough money for about 1 in every 20 kids to have a day care space. 
Automatically all the families who have a stay at home parent, or who rely on a family member to take care of children, or who send their children to a religious-based child care option, or who have a neighbourhood nanny, all those options, which polls show are far preferred by parents, would automatically have been excluded by that plan. 
We have a choice that is very simple: a 1 in 20 chance at a government day care space for one's child or a 100% chance at a $1,200 a year choice in child care allowance. The choice is a universal system of $1,200 for every preschooler or an exclusive government run option, which gives a child care space to 1 in every 20 children. 
Why does the member oppose the universal option of giving every child the opportunity of the $1,200 choice in child care allowance? Why is he—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.
[Interjection]
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, if that is the hon. member's understanding of finance and history and he is in charge of the Treasury Board, that is like asking Colonel Sanders to take care of the chickens.
Clearly, history will prove that in 1993 the reason the child care program could not begin was because of the very sorry state of affairs the country had inherited. It took that many years to get out of that. The fact that we can get into a situation in our country where we are the leader of the G-7 is very significant.
For my riding, clearly child care spaces, which would have been created from the money that came from the federal government, is now being used by the provincial government to take care of the existing spaces for the next four years. It is essentially an uploading of that program.
Make no mistake about it, all municipalities are keenly aware of the hit they have taken in terms of early learning and care. They understand that those which had needs and backlogs which would have been addressed this year, in fact in January because the deal was signed, would have had those children in place. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and all people in every municipality understand what kind of hit they have taken. 
In four years, after the money provinces are using to carry this through runs out and property taxes go up again, there is only one government that will take the full blame for hurting early learning and child care.
Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the hard-working families of Palliser, on behalf of seniors, producers, small business people and students in my constituency who told me that during the last federal election, they wanted a government in Ottawa that would deliver responsible spending and real tax relief to put money back into their pockets after more than a decade of Liberal mismanagement.
Our government has delivered on that commitment with our first budget. When I went home after the budget last weekend, Palliser residents told me this was a good budget and that our government was on the right track.
We have delivered on our commitment to tax relief. In fact, the budget delivers $20 billion in tax relief over two years. As has been said by many members, that is more than the last four Liberal budgets combined.
If there was one thing I heard again and again on the doorsteps of Palliser residents during the last election campaign, it was that they were overtaxed. Is it any wonder that they felt that way? Under the previous Liberal government, billions of dollars were taken from Canadians through overtaxation and wasted on scandals and boondoggles such as the sponsorship program and a costly and ineffective gun registry.
Meanwhile, families in Palliser are working longer, paying more in taxes and saving less than they were 13 years ago, but I am proud to say that all that has changed under the new Conservative government.
The bottom line of budget 2006 is that every resident of Palliser, every family in Saskatchewan and every person across this great country will see real tax relief.
 In the budget our government has committed to reducing the GST from 7% to 6%, effective July 1 of this year and creating a new $1,000 Canada employment credit, which starts effective July 1. We will reduce the lowest personal income tax rate from 16% to 15.5%, effective July 1. We will increase the amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax.
 We will create a new apprenticeship job creation tax credit of up to $2,000 per apprentice. We will completely eliminate the federal income tax on all income from scholarships, bursaries and fellowships while creating a new text book tax credit for post-secondary students. I can not say how much I would have liked that to have been in place when I was a student while the Liberals were in power. 
We will provide a physical fitness tax credit for up to $500 to cover registration fees for children's sport, which was very well received by parents with one, two or three kids in sports in my riding. We will double the amount of eligible pension income that seniors can claim under the pension income credit, the first such increase in more than 30 years delivered by the government and the Prime Minister.
As I said, budget 2006 delivers $20 billion in tax relief over two years. That is more tax relief than the last four federal budgets combined. For every $1 in new spending, we have delivered $2 in real tax relief back to Canadians. 
As a result of these measures, residents of Saskatchewan will pay $250 million less in taxes in 2007. Families earning between $15,000 and $30,000 a year will be better off by almost $300 a year in 2007. Those earning between $45,000 and $60,000 will save almost $650. Those are real results for families.
Unlike the previous government, our government has focused spending on key federal priorities, Canadians' priorities, that will get results and provide value for taxpayers money. 
I neglected to inform the Chair, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the excellent member of Parliament from Edmonton—Sherwood Park.
A significant example of this is the new universal child care benefit. As of July 1, Palliser families will receive $1,200 per year for each child under six. That is real results. That is real money in the pockets of constituents in my riding, not fictional spaces, not promised spaces. We heard promises for 13 years with no delivery. This is money in the hands of families. We will also spend $250 million, beginning in 2007, to create child care spaces. 
We have also followed through on our commitment to make our streets safer and to reduce the crime epidemic that is sweeping our communities. We heard from the Liberal member opposite that he would welcome a prison in his riding. We can have that debate another time. I invite him to come on over and join us as we get tough on crime in the country. 
Under federal Liberal and provincial NDP governments, my home province of Saskatchewan holds the dubious distinction of being Canada's crime capital. When I talk to seniors in Moose Jaw and families in Regina about the problem of crime, they have told me clearly that it is time to get tough on crime and tough on criminals.
During the last Parliament, I demanded many times that the former Liberal government get tough on drug crimes to address the crystal meth epidemic, which continues to sweep our province. The residents of Palliser indicated during the last election that they were tired of begging the Liberals to take action and that we needed a new government in Ottawa that was serious about getting tough on serious crimes. With the budget, we are keeping our word. We are cracking down on crime. 
We will provide $161 million to put more RCMP officers on the streets. We will invest $37 million in my home city of Regina for the RCMP to expand its national training academy. This is great news for Regina and the province of Saskatchewan. We will provide $20 million for communities to use to develop programs designed to prevent youth crime. We will provide the money that is required to arm our border agents. We have delivered on our commitment to make our streets and our borders safer.
I want to turn now to agriculture and what budget 2006 delivers to agricultural producers, who are the backbone of Palliser's economy. Farming is part of our heritage. Farmers feed our cities and keep our rural communities strong. Falling prices and trade disputes are causing them real financial hardship. People are suffering. They are losing farms that have been in their families for generations.
Current insurance and income support programs are not doing enough, and we cannot allow this to continue. That is why our government will restore and sustain a strong, vibrant farm sector which provides the income farmers need to live.
One of our government's first actions was to accelerate disbursement of $755 million in payments under the grains and oilseeds payment program. We are now going further. In budget 2006 our government is committing an additional $2 billion in funding over two years, $1.5 billion of which will be allocated in this budget.
During the election we committed to an additional $500 million for farm support programs, and we are delivering on that promise. We will provide an additional $500 million per year for farm support. We will provide a one time investment of $1 billion to help farmers in the transition to more effective programming for farm income stabilization and disaster relief.
Unlike the previous Liberal government, which lurched from crisis to crisis on the farm gate without any real vision or commitment to improving things, our government has begun the process of scrapping the CAIS and replacing it with programs that are simpler for farmers and that will actually deliver results.
As the residents of Palliser understand and appreciate, the Conservative government has delivered on its key priorities. Families, seniors, students and working people will all see tax relief in this budget and new spending which addresses their priorities and improves their security. We have also addressed health care, which is of particular importance to the residents of Palliser. Despite being the home of Tommy Douglas, Saskatchewan continues to experience the longest wait lists in the country under an NDP government.
 It is unfortunate that two parties did not support the budget. I do not know how they are going to go home and look their constituents in the eye and explain why they voted against real tax relief and real help for families in our country.
Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how that member is going to go home and tell the poor people in his riding that he is increasing their income tax from 15% to 15.5%. I invite all the people at home to look at their income tax forms. I would not have brought this up if he had not said it was a reduction. I ask people to look at their income tax forms, at the column with the lowest rate. It is 15% this year. On July 1 it goes up to 15.5%. 
That is not the only reduction for low income people. The low income tax credit for young children has been removed. As for the $1,200, with cuts to that because of their income tax and other benefits they lose, it could be as low as $200 for low income people. The Caledon Institute said that, not the opposition. That is 55¢ a day for day care. How is the member going to tell stay at home parents that they will receive 55¢? The member for Nepean—Carleton just said it costs $40 a day and the government is giving 55¢.
The government is cutting culture by two-thirds of the increase it was going to get. How can government members be proud of that?
However, my question is about the broken promises, which seem to be adding up. Why was there so much talk about defence? Actually, I really enjoy our defence minister and I think he is a great minister, but he got scooped. Our party had larger increases for defence. After all the hyperbole, the Conservatives did not give such a big increase and there is no talk about equipment. The three icebreakers, which I was delighted to hear about, have vanished since the campaign promises.
I would like to ask the member about the capital gains tax promise that has now vanished from the budget.
The member also mentioned agriculture. The last part of my question is about how the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance had a prebudget meeting. I congratulate her for that. It was reported to me that when Conservative members asked her where the $1.5 billion was, as the member just suggested, she said, “Oh, we can't talk about that until it has been through cabinet”. Then the Conservative members asked, “Where is the money for this spring? How is this money going to flow?” The answer was, “Oh, we don't know that”. 
The farmers need money for this spring. Not a single Conservative member yet has mentioned any possible mechanism by which the farmers will be able to get any of that $1.5 billion to stop the bankruptcies that are going on right now.
Just so we do not get the common question about what our government did, let us remember that statistically and financially in the last several years we gave the largest funding to farmers at any time in history.
[Interjection]
Dave Batters: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond to some of those comments. If we look at the press coverage of the budget, what we will see from poll to poll is that Canadians love this budget. They love what they are seeing from this Prime Minister and this government.
Let us look at the tax relief. There is $20 billion in tax relief over two years, which is incredible, more than the last four Liberal budgets put together. We have to look at the totality of the package. We have to look at everything. There is the employment tax credit, for example. We have to look at all the ways that the government is putting money back in the hands of hard-working Canadians.
There is money for child care, the $1,200 a year. The member talks about how much that equates to per day et cetera. Let us look at how much money hundreds of thousands of families across this nation received under the previous Liberal government.
 Let us count it up. 
What about shift workers in this country? How much did they get under the previous Liberal plan? Nothing. 
How about people who utilized a neighbourhood day care or a trusted family member? What did they get? Nothing. 
What about mom or dad who chose to stay at home and raise children? How much did they get under the previous Liberal government?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nothing.
Dave Batters:  Absolutely nothing. 
What about people in rural Saskatchewan, where there is no licensed day care facility? What did they get under the previous Liberal government? Absolutely nothing.
It goes on. Let us talk about the transit passes, the almost 16% credit that people across the country will get for any mode of transport they choose to use. We have to look at the totality of the package. That is a fantastic measure to improve our environment as well. As for the members opposite who say this is not going to encourage anyone to ride public transit, they clearly have not been in their ridings and they have not been listening to their constituents. My constituents are loving that measure. They think it is very positive.
As for money for farmers, that question is just a softball question, and it is almost as though one of my own members gave me this question, because no matter which way we look at it, it is $1.5 billion more than that party, the previous Liberal government, committed to our producers. Yes, it is not a panacea and it is not a cure-all, but it is real money for farmers, money that is going to keep people on their land and enable them to keep farms that have been in their families for generations.
 That member is $1.5 billion short.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is a tough act to follow.
 I suppose those members who have been here longer have noticed that my number of interventions in the House has really decreased in the last year and a half or two years. It used to be that I was up all the time on everything. 
I was asked the other day why I have turned really quiet. I responded by saying that we are now surrounded by very capable new members. I just feel I do not want to dominate the proceedings. I want to give them a chance to develop their debating skills as well and they are doing just fine. 
My hon. colleague from Palliser has done us proud in the last little while, and I really appreciate that. It is such an honour to be here with all of these good quality, highly principled people who want to do what is good for this country.
As members know I taught math for many years. One of the things that really disturbs me is the lack of mathematical knowledge by the members on the other side. Somehow they cannot get it into their heads that when they compare two numbers, and most of us would look at it and say this number is less than that one, they call it a tax increase. They are just out of it. What they are failing to take into account is the fact that the income tax rate on the lowest category is 16%. The update that provided for that to be reduced has never been passed by this Parliament.
The fact of the matter is that even though the Liberals say that they did this and it was announced in their budget, it has never had the approval of Parliament. They cannot say that the tax rate has been increased. 
Even if the tax rate had been increased and let me take that stance just for their benefit for a few milliseconds. Let us say that 15% would have been approved and it would be in place, we are talking about 15.5% now. My question to the members opposite is very simple, who instead of listening keep heckling here.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  It was approved.
Ken Epp:  Just listen to the master math teacher for a few milliseconds, if I may suggest.
How much money is this? I will take $35,000 as an example. The $35,000 at 15.5% is equal to $5,425. It is curious that if we were to charge a rate of 15%, we would come up with exactly the same number if the taxable income is $36,167, which is about what it would have been under the Liberal plan. It is actually fairly close.
All of the individuals earning income and paying income tax under our plan have an additional $1,000 that they can earn tax free because of the benefit for employment. We have now another $1,000 that we are not paying tax on at all. Zero. 
As a result, the 15.5% on the amount that is remaining is actually less tax than if we paid 15% on the larger amount. All they have to do is to put on their math caps for a second and let it sink in. That is how it works. One number is not bigger than the other because of the tax rate. It is actually smaller because of the fact that we are paying on a lesser amount. When one adds to this the fact that this will benefit all families, this is a tremendous thing.
I am a little older now and I do not know whether I should announce it to everyone, but it was just yesterday that I turned 67. It is a long time since we had young children running around the house, but I still remember when my wife and I decided that she would be a full time mom. We decided that the best care for our children was parental care. In order to accommodate that choice, I had to take on the teaching of some night classes in order to pay my taxes.
 In order to live on my income alone, we made sacrifices to make that happen because it was important, but there was no recognition for it to speak of in the tax act. We just made the sacrifice with after tax dollars. 
 I took on teaching a night class at NAIT, where I worked, in order to supplement our income so we could pay our bills. I used to tell people that on Tuesday nights I was working for Trudeau. On Thursday nights I was working for my family. That is because about half of my incremental income went to taxes, so not only did we have the loss of my wife's income because she was a full time mom, we also had a penalty because when I did that extra work, I had to pay tax at the higher rate. 
I am so happy to be a part of a political party that looks at the value of a tax system for families and is saying that it will allow those families to make a real choice. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the absolute best child care that children can get in those early formative years is the care of mom and dad. There is no doubt about that. There is a lot of data available if we were to look for it, in fact it is available, that proves that to be true.
Mr. Speaker, I can read body language. I taught for 31 years. When I see somebody sitting like this, I know he is ready to go, so I will now interrupt my speech and hope to continue it at the next sitting.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Before I declare what time it is, I would like to join with all members of the House in wishing the member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park a very happy birthday.
I would also like to wish a happy Mother's Day to every mother who is in the House and to every mother in Canada.
I would especially like to wish a happy Mother's Day to a very special lady in Saint-Isidore, Ontario, my mother, Anna Galipeau-Secours.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)